Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

University of St. Andrew's (Grants)

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what additional grants are being made by the Universities Grants Committee to Queen's College, Dundee, following the re-organisation which has recently taken place; and what new Chairs it is proposed to establish there.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Henry Brooke): Additional grants of £4,000 for the academic year 1954–55, £12,000 for 1955–56 and £20,000 for 1956–57 have been approved for the University of St. Andrew's to meet the cost of academic developments proposed by the University Court both in St. Salvator's College, St. Andrew's and in Queen's College, Dundee. Among the developments contemplated are the establishment of four new Chairs, one of which will be part-time, at Queen's College.

Mr. Thomson: While thanking the Minister for that answer, may I ask him whether he can say what proportion of the moneys will be available for development in Dundee and, in particular, whether the money to be spent in Dundee will be used to develop a faculty of social science there?

Mr. Brooke: I am afraid that I cannot say with any precision what use the University of St. Andrew's will make of the money.

Mr. Strachey: Can the hon. Gentleman assure us that consideration will be given to some of this money being used to expand the work of the School of Economics at Dundee, which has now become a part of the university?

Mr. Brooke: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, it is not for the Government to decide precisely how money allocated to the university shall be spent.

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one of the difficulties in making full use of the new facilities is presented by the number of students; and can he, or the Universities Grants Committee, do anything to increase the proportion of Scottish students at St. Andrew's, Dundee?

Mr. Brooke: That is not a question for me or the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Pensions

Miss Ward: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the hardships experienced by people living on fixed incomes covered by the Pensions (Increase) Act, he will introduce legislation authorising a further increase and at the same time abolish the ceiling implicit in the present Act at which such increases can be paid.

Mr. H. Brooke: Her Majesty's Government's policy on this matter is fully set out in the White Paper (Command 9092) issued last March. There has been no change in circumstances since then to modify the conclusion stated in paragraph 44 of that Paper.

Miss Ward: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the Government have been very busy saying that in the last 12 months we have had an era of increased prosperity? Will he bear in mind that the people referred to in my Question, who have no big powerful group to speak for them, have not had advantage from this new prosperous era, and will he ask his right hon. Friend to reconsider the position?

Mr. Brooke: I will bear in mind anything the hon. Lady says, but the White Paper published in March did command a broad measure of support.

Miss Ward: Not from me.

Tobacco Tokens (Retirement Pensioners)

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the Board of Customs and Excise will not issue tobacco tokens to a retirement pensioner on the authority of a certificate from the


Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance, stating that the claimant, though not in possesion of a pension order book, is in receipt of a retirement pension.

Mr. H. Brooke: The Tobacco Duty (Relief for Pensioners) Regulations, 1947, made by the previous Administration confines the relief to pensioners who are drawing their pensions by means of a pension order book. As my predecessors under both Governments have more than once explained to the House, the administrative obstacles to extending the relief to pensioners whose pensions are paid otherwise are decisive.

Mr. Robinson: Will the hon. Gentleman look again at this matter, because it seems incredible that no administrative means can be found to make this small concession to old-age pensioners available to all pensioners who are, or who should be, entitled to it?

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman is asking us to be cleverer than his own Government were. It is extremely difficult to bring into the scope of the tobacco relief the type of person who draws pension for only two or three weeks at a time because otherwise he is working.

Under-developed Countries (Assistance)

Mr. Bence: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what contribution, in sterling, was made available to under-developed countries in 1953 and 1954; and what is his estimate of the sum to be provided for 1955.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Reginald Maudling): Figures are not available in calendar years. In the financial years 1952–53 and 1953–54, £150 million and £165 million, respectively, were made available to under-developed countries and to international organisations working in under-developed countries. The United Kingdom has so far committed itself to make available £169 million in 1954–55. These figures include Governmental finance by way of grant or loan, sterling releases of blocked balances to Colombo Plan countries, and Governmental loans raised on the London market; but they exclude other capital

transfers between private persons, or institutions.

Mr. Bence: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Sir Alec Randall stated in the United Nations Economic Committee that we just cannot visualise having sufficient capital resources available, nor can we foresee how they may become available, short of a substantial degree of world-wide disarmament? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that we should, therefore, give first priority to arranging a world conference with the object of getting some disarmament in view of the importance of world-wide development?

Mr. Maudling: I agree that the less that is spent on arms the more can be spent on other things. That is a lesson which should be learnt in other countries besides this one.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Will the hon. Gentleman consider particularly the level of the grants to the United Nations special funds in view of the many urgent projects, particularly in regard to world health, which are having to be postponed for lack of finance, for which there is very little provision at the moment?

Mr. Maudling: We consider all the claims as sympathetically as we can, but the hon. Gentleman will realise that the amount being provided by the United Kingdom is increasing and is already a very heavy commitment.

Mr. Alport: Can my hon. Friend say how the figures compare with those for 1949, 1950 and 1951?

Mr. Maudling: I should need notice of that question.

Arts Council Grants (Covent Garden)

Miss Ward: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the Report of the Public Accounts Committee on the high percentage of Arts Council expenditure in London and the fact that Covent Garden expenditure has to be met out of the Arts Council Grant causing this disparity, he will consider treating Covent Garden as a National Opera House on the same basis as the National Gallery or Tate Gallery.

Mr. H. Brooke: My right hon. Friend would be most reluctant to diminish the valuable part played by the Arts Council in encouraging opera and ballet at the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden, but he keeps under constant review the form of the financial arrangements to which my hon. Friend draws attention.

Miss Ward: Is my hon. Friend aware that he has got hold of the wrong end of the stick in that answer? Does he think it fair that the Arts Council should be publicly castigated by the Public Accounts Committee for the expenditure of money which it is bound to spend because of the Minister of Works? Will he reconsider the position so that the Arts Council can obtain the full value, which it ought to have, of the money which is sent to it for the purpose of spreading art in all parts of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Brooke: I said in my original answer that my right hon. Friend keeps under constant review these financial arrangements, which, I agree, constitute a very real problem, and I do not think there is any easy solution to them.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: Is not the hon. Lady asking for an attempt to be made to cover up something to which she apparently does not object, namely, the spending of far too large a proportion of available funds in London rather than in the provinces?

Mr. Brooke: The terms of the Question make clear what my hon. Friend wishes to be done. In the current year the Arts Council is spending on opera and ballet outside London a very great deal more than the figure mentioned in the Report of the Public Accounts Committee.

Government-occupied Properties (Rates)

Mr. Mitchison: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that in some cases contributions in lieu of rates are not made in respect of requisitioned property occupied for the public service; in what circumstances such contributions are made in respect of such requisitioned property; and whether he is satisfied that the omission to make contributions in such cases conforms with the principle adopted by the Treasury Minute of 25th June, 1874, and subsequently reaffirmed, that

property occupied for the public service should contribute to the local rates equally with other property.

Mr. H. Brooke: Contributions are made in respect of all property occupied by the Crown, including requisitioned property. I think that the hon. and learned Member may be referring to the contributions in respect of requisitioned property occupied by the Fighting Services, which continue to be made on the basis of the rateable value at the date of requisition. This shields the local authority from loss of rates, but precludes profit attributable to the emergency.

Mr. Mitchison: Is that practice consistent with what was said in the Treasury Minute in 1874, that there should be equality in these matters between Government contributions in lieu of rates and the rates that are paid by the people?

Mr. Brooke: The Question has stimulated me to study with unusual care the terms of the Treasury Minute of 1874, and my answer to the hon. and learned Member is, "Yes, I think it is consistent."

Mr. Mitchison: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I propose to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr. Mitchison: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that when contributions are made in lieu of rates in respect of property occupied for the public service, deductions are occasionally made from such contributions on account of services not provided by the local authority; what is the principle on which such deductions are made; and whether he is satisfied that such deductions conform with the principle adopted by the Treasury Minute of 25th June, 1874, and subsequently reaffirmed, that property occupied for the public service should contribute to the local rates equally with other property.

Mr. H. Brooke: The answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes, Sir." The principle is that the rates upon any property, whether in Crown or private occupation, depend in part on the extent of the services for which the local authority makes provision. The answer to the last part of the Question, therefore, is also "Yes, Sir."

Mr. Mitchison: Does that mean that a private ratepayer who does not get certain services is entitled to make deductions from his rates?

Mr. Brooke: No, Sir, he is not entitled to make deductions on his own account from the rates. If the hon. and learned Member has any further questions on this subject, perhaps we could discuss them altogether when he raises the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Mitchison: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I propose to raise this matter, too, on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

Small Savings (Tax)

Mr. H. Fraser: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the national policy to attract 2 million new savers, he will now consider taking steps to free from Income Tax the interest derived from Post Office savings accounts up to a sum commensurate with other forms of national saving which are tax-free.

Mr. Slater: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the requests that have been made in the country to the people to save more, what consideration has been given to the small investors in Post Office Savings and Trustee Savings Groups for exemption from tax on interest payments.

Mr. H. Brooke: An investment bearing interest which is free from Income Tax is available to the small saver in the form of National Savings certificates. My right hon. Friend has recently increased the maximum permitted holding of certificates of the current Ninth Issue from 700 to 1,000. I am afraid I could not contemplate extending tax exemption to interest on Post Office and Trustee Savings accounts also.

Mr. Fraser: Surely my hon. Friend is aware that the probe into small savings introduced by the late Socialist Government is extremely unpopular with many savers? Surely he will agree that the extension of National Savings certificate holdings from 700 to 1,000 puts the smaller saver who works through the Post Office Savings Bank at a disadvantage compared with the larger saver? Will he consult the Post Office and Trustees Savings Banks and the National Savings

Committee to see whether something cannot be done to devise a scheme whereby something equally attractive can be offered to the really small saver through the offices of these banks?

Mr. Brooke: I am ready to do anything in my power to stimulate savings, but I must point out to my hon. Friend that National Savings certificates are on sale at only 15s. each. Therefore, one has not to be a very large saver to be able to purchase one certificate.

Mr. T. Williams: What special virtue have National Savings certificates which is not possessed by the Post Office Savings Bank for the same amount of money saved?

Mr. Brooke: The difference is that if one puts money into a savings certificate one is putting it there for a considerable time, but one can put money into the Post Office Savings Bank and draw it out again within a few days.

Miss Ward: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the new savings scheme promoted by the National Savings Committee, which gives tax advantages to the employer and the employee, he will also take steps to exempt these savings from Income Tax when they are finally drawn in old age by the beneficiaries.

Mr. H. Brooke: I am not quite sure what my hon. Friend has in mind, but I am afraid I could not agree that all income from savings schemes should be entirely exempt from Income Tax, whatever the total income of the recipients.

Miss Ward: Will my hon. Friend invite the Chairman of the National Savings Committee to lunch and ask him why it is that there are all sorts of exemptions for people who are working and earning salaries and wages, while so little help is given to people in their old age when they need the benefit from savings, which is to my mind very much more important?

Mr. Brooke: I can tell my hon. Friend that the Chairman of the National Savings Committee has been so kind as to invite me to lunch, and I look forward to an early opportunity of discussing with him all matters that seem to be of benefit to the saving community.

Children's Comics (Dollar Imports)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent dollars are allocated for the importation of United States horror comics.

Mr. Maudling: Dollars are made available for single copies of any periodical, which may be imported through the post under open general licence, by persons who pay, or have paid, the overseas supplier direct. Dollars spent on comics, as opposed to other periodicals, are not separately recorded, but the cost is believed to be negligible.

Mr. Rankin: In view of the nature of the publications, can the Minister justify the spending of even a small amount of dollars on their purchase? Will he see what he can do to stop the practice?

Mr. Maudling: I am sorry to think people should spend money upon importing horror comics, but what I could not justify would be the use of exchange control powers for the purpose of censorship.

Mr. Jay: When the Chancellor allocates dollars for these purposes, does he not consider the value of the imports in question to this country?

Mr. Maudling: That is exactly my point. My right hon. Friend allocates dollars for as many periodicals as he thinks are justified, but he cannot distinguish between one periodical and another.

Mr. Ede: Does the hon. Gentleman's reply also refer to the expenditure of dollars on the purchase of the plates from which the comics can be printed in this country?

Mr. Maudling: I gather that these plates are paid for on a royalty basis and that there is no separate record of the cost involved. With regard to the provision of dollars, that matter normally flows from the provision of a licence, and licences are dealt with by the Minister of State, Board of Trade.

Mr. Rankin: Surely, it is the fact that periodicals coming into the country are controlled and can be prohibited? Why are these exempted?

Mr. Maudling: Whether or not they can be controlled, that control is not within the foreign exchange control for which I am responsible; it would not be right in operating this control to distinguish between one periodical and another on grounds of taste.

Estate Duty Valuation (Houses)

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the practice of levying Estate Duty in respect of a house owned and occupied by the deceased on the post-war value of the house, causes hardship in those cases where this value cannot be realised because the beneficiaries have to continue to reside in the house; and whether he will take steps to revive the concession which his predecessors permitted in such cases.

Mr. H. Brooke: This concession is still in force, but, as my right hon. Friend has explained to the hon. Member in correspondence, its value has diminished, and in some areas disappeared, because the premium on vacant possession has diminished or disappeared. The concession has never given relief in respect of increases over the pre-war value which are not attributable to the factor of vacant possession.

Mr. Thomas: Would the Minister state whether this concession still applies? Is he further aware that great hardship is being caused in Cardiff, where people who have simply been left the home in which they are living are being required to pay Estate Duty, which means selling the home in order to pay the Estate Duty. [Interruption.] Well, it is true. Will the hon. Gentleman look into this matter?

Mr. Brooke: The concession continues to operate in all parts of the country where it is still the case that the element of vacant possession at the date of death inflates the value of the house more than it did before the war. I will willingly look further into any individual cases, but the case to which the hon. Member has referred has already been examined by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.

Mr. Gower: Will my hon. Friend look at this matter again? Is it not the case that the trouble is caused by district valuers tending to attach too inflated


values for houses occupied by the dependents of the deceased? Will he examine that aspect of it?

Mr. Brooke: I am quite prepared to continue to examine these cases, but I must say that, in my view, the concession is being rightly applied by district valuers.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I have put cases to him, that I have evidence of very varying practice in different parts of the country, and that there certainly is evidence of a change of practice in the last six or nine months?

Mr. Brooke: I assure the House that there has been no change of practice, but this is a difficult and highly technical matter. I am certainly ready to look into any individual case which any hon. Member cares to bring to my notice.

Mr. Thomas: In view of the Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment at the first possible opportunity.

£ Sterling (Value)

Mr. McKay: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what has been the drop in the value of the £ sterling from the end of December, 1945, to September, 1954; and what was the rise in retail prices on the same basis;
(2) what was the drop in the value of the £ sterling from July, 1946, to September, 1954; and what was the rise in the retail prices on the same basis; and
(3) what was the drop in the value of the £ sterling from January, 1946, to June, 1947; and what was the rise in the retail prices on the same basis.

Mr. Maudling: I will, with permission, circulate the reply, which contains a number of figures, in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. McKay: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for that information, could the Minister tell me whether, in his examination of the problem, he has ascertained what are the rises in percentages on the Treasury index from four years ago to the present time, as compared with the Ministry of Labour index during the same period? Is it his experience that the rise in prices is much the same in both indices?

Mr. Maudling: There are two indices. There is the index of consumer goods

and services, which comes out annually, and there is the Ministry of Labour index. In our experience, they move very much in the same way together.

Mr. Burden: Would my hon. Friend, at the same time, indicate the increase in the value of real wages in the same period?

Mr. Maudling: It seems to be very much the same. The calculation can be made from the same indices.

Following is the reply:
The basis for these answers is the price index for all consumer goods and services, calculated annually for national income purposes, for the period from 1945 to 1953, and the interim index of retail prices thereafter. Monthly figures are not available on a comparable basis for the period before June, 1947. For both December, 1945, and January, 1946, therefore, the base figure used is the average of the two yearly indices for 1945 and 1946, and for July, 1946, the average for the year 1946.
On that basis, the answers are as follows:

—
Fall in purchasing power of £
Increase in retail prices



s.d.



1. December, 1945
20 0
100


September, 1954
13 5
149


2. July, 1946
20 0
100


September, 1954
13 7
147


3. January, 1946
20 0
100


June, 1947
18 6
108

Entertainment Profession (Taxation)

Mr. Bowles: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the difficulty in applying Pay As You Earn to the entertainment profession, because of the Inland Revenue Department's finding that, in the main, the theatrical profession have no employers, he will consider holding theatrical agents who make bookings and collect fees responsible for their clients' Income Tax.

Mr. H. Brooke: The hon. Member's suggestion could not be implemented without further legislation. The whole question to which he refers is within the terms of reference of the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income, and my right hon. Friend will give careful consideration to anything they may say about it in their forthcoming Report.

Mr. Bowles: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the disclosures of tax evasion in this House last week have shocked the country, and that I came across many cases of anger among my constituents during the weekend? Can he give us any idea how much is lost by evasion?

Mr. Brooke: I could not say, without notice, how much is lost by evasion, but, of course, some of these large sums mentioned in the papers do get collected in due course. I thought I made clear to the House a week ago how strongly I personally feel on this question of tax evasion.

Mr. Bowles: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that this ignorance on his part is a mockery to every taxpayer in the country?

Mr. Jay: Even though there are great practical difficulties in the matter, will not the hon. Gentleman nevertheless look at it very seriously to see if some improvement can be made?

Mr. Brooke: Yes, Sir; I should like to tell the House that I was looking into this matter before the Question appeared on the Order Paper.

Ministerial Salaries

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many Ministers have declined to accept the additional £1,000 per annum salary.

Mr. H. Brooke: The full salaries authorised by statute become payable this month. If any Minister wishes to draw less, he will doubtless instruct his accounting officer accordingly.

Mr. Jeger: Would it not be a good gesture if the Minister of National Insurance were to decline to accept the extra £20 a week until something has been done to help the old-age pensioners?

Mr. Brooke: Particularly on so delicate a matter as this, I do not think I can be expected to answer for other Ministers.

Trust Funds (Investment)

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will appoint a committee to consider the list of securities authorised for the invest-

ment of trust funds, with a view to the scope of the list being extended.

Mr. H. Brooke: The Government have still under consideration the recommendations of the Nathan Committee on Charitable Trusts on this matter. I do not think there is any need to appoint a special committee to consider the question further.

Brigadier Medlicott: Is the Minister aware that, in the unhappy but unlikely event of the party opposite winning the next General Election, there would be widespread loss of confidence and possible fluctuations in the value of gilt-edged securities? Ought we not therefore to allow trustees to insure against these risks by investing at least part of their funds in the debenture or preference stock of the very well managed industrial securities which are available?

Mr. Brooke: I share the concern indicated by my hon. and gallant Friend in the first part of his supplementary question, but this subject of trustee securities is dealt with in the Report of the Nathan Committee, and I think it would be premature to make any announcement or reach any decision apart from the rest of the recommendations of that committee.

Mr. Jay: Does the hon. Gentleman think that it is particularly helpful or public-spirited of his hon. and gallant Friend to seek, for any reason, to undermine public confidence?

Brigadier Medlicott: Is the Minister aware that, over the last 20 years or so, those trustees who, under their own trust instruments, have had these wider powers of investment, have on the whole done better through this power of investing in industrial securities than they would have done by being confined to gilt-edged loans?

Mr. Brooke: I certainly think that wise trustees have done so.

Mr. Pannell: Will the Financial Secretary bear in mind the fund on which the National Liberal Party is supposed to be living, namely, the Lloyd George Fund on the sale of party honours? Does not that come into it?

Mr. Brooke: I think that question is some little distance away from the Question on the Order Paper.

Foreign Travel Allowance (Dollars)

Captain Pilkington: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he hopes to make it financially possible for people, other than those officially sponsored, to visit the United States of America.

Mr. Maudling: I can do no more than refer my hon. Friend to my reply to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) on 21st October.

Captain Pilkington: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the importance of increasing two-way traffic between this country and America? Has he nothing more helpful to offer than he has told the House?

Mr. Maudling: I can only repeat that my right hon. Friend is personally extremely interested and is anxious to increase the dollar tourist allowance as soon as he feels justified in doing so, in the light of all the other demands upon our dollar reserves.

Sir R. Acland: Is the Economic Secretary aware that the workers in my constituency who want to take their holidays in Florida are awaiting this announcement with an impatience that is almost unrestrained?

Personal Expenditure

Mr. Osborne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the estimated expenditure per person per week in the United Kingdom on drink, tobacco, amusement and gambling, respectively.

Mr. Maudling: It is estimated that in the year July, 1953, to June, 1954, the average amounts spent per person per week in the United Kingdom on drink, tobacco, amusements and gambling were 6s. 6d., 6s. 5d., ls. 5d. and 6d., respectively. The figure for gambling is a very rough estimate and relates to net expenditure, i.e., amounts staked less winnings.

Mr. Osborne: Are those figures calculated on the whole population, including children, or only on adults?

Mr. Maudling: The Question asked for a calculation per person, and I take "person" to mean "individual."

Capital Issues Committee

Mr. Grimond: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the number of issues of all kinds which have recently been made, he will abolish the Capital Issues Committee or restate the principles on which it acts.

Mr. Maudling: The policy of controlling capital issues is under continuous review, and my right hon. Friend will bear in mind the suggestions made by the hon. Member.

Mr. Grimond: Does not the Economic Secretary agree that the proportion of applications which have been rejected falls steadily? Surely the time has now come when this Committee might be reconsidered?

Mr. Maudling: I agree that the proportion of rejections is small, but we must not forget that a number of applications are never forwarded because the applicants know that they have no chance of success. I assure the hon. Gentleman again that this matter is under constant review.

Mr. Norman Smith: Does not the continuance of the Capital Issues Committee, though doubtless conducive to the perpetuation of full employment, constitute a reflection on the sincerity of the furious Tory propaganda at the last General Election against Socialist controls?

Mr. Maudling: Its continuation shows how wisely we move forward in all the things we do.

Local Authority Crematoria (Appeal Case)

Mr. K. Thompson: asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the inequity to certain local authorities owning crematoria following the failure of the Board of Inland Revenue to proceed with an agreed test case due to their error and the consequent withholding of action by the above-mentioned local authorities, he will instruct the Board to defer their new proposals from the financial year 1952 to the financial year 1953.

Mr. H. Brooke: No, Sir. Even if such a course were desirable, there is no provision in law whereby the proposals made in the rating year 1952–53 could be deferred until the rating year 1953–54.

Mr. Thompson: Is my hon. Friend not aware of the very great injustice which is being inflicted on the local authorities to whom my Question refers, entirely as a result of the action of the Board of Inland Revenue in confusing the issues that were involved in an appeal case? Will he look into the matter again and see what can be done to help them?

Mr. Brooke: I cannot agree that there has been injustice to the local authorities concerned. Whatever is ultimately decided will operate from the year 1952–53.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE (SECURITY PROCEDURE)

Mr. Grimond: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many civil servants have been found to be bad security risks as a result of security checks.

Mr. H. Brooke: Since the introduction of the security procedure on 15th March, 1948, 124 civil servants have been removed from their former posts for security reasons.

Mr. Grimond: In view of the enormous number of civil servants, does not the fact that the figure is so small reflect very great credit on the Service? Will the Minister keep this matter under review so that the number who are subject to these checks can be reduced?

Mr. Brooke: I quite agree that the figure reflects the utmost credit on the Civil Service as a whole. I think that the whole House is satisfied that this very unpleasant and delicate procedure has been and is being applied with the greatest care.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can the Minister say how many were Fascists and how many were Communists?

Mr. Brooke: No, Sir.

Mr. Grimond: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what form and with what Civil Service organisations the increase in the number of civil servants subject to security checks was discussed.

Mr. H. Brooke: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Droylsden (Mr. W. R. Williams) on 2nd November.

Mr. Grimond: Does that reply mean that, while the Staff Side of the Whitley Council were informed of the extent of the check, they were, in fact, not consulted?

Mr. Brooke: They were consulted. They were informed precisely of what was proposed and were given opportunity to express their views. They have, in fact, asked for certain further information and are being given it.

Mr. W. R. Williams: When the Financial Secretary answered a supplementary Question of mine on 21st October, he assured this House that there had been discussions with the Staff Side on the National Whitley Council. Does his present reply mean that he completely misled the House on that aspect of the matter? Secondly, what is the reaction, of the Staff Side of the National Whitley Council to what many people regard as a very hysterical proposal?

Mr. Brooke: I certainly did not mislead the House in any way. The Staff Side did, as I have said in my reply, ask for certain points to be clarified, and that is being done.

Mr. Williams: I asked the Minister whether there had been any discussions with the Staff Side of the National Whitley Council. May I ask him now if there has been any discussion at any time? Does he know the difference between discussion and consultation by letter?

Mr. Brooke: The Staff Side were told of these proposals on 4th October, and they were given an opportunity to say what they wished to say.

Mr. Jay: Are we then to take it from the Financial Secretary that no opportunity for conversation was given at all to the Staff Side?

Mr. Brooke: I do not think that is right. There has been no closing down on discussion. There has, in fact, been every anxiety to bring this proposal in by agreement. The situation now is, as I say, that the Staff Side have asked for certain matters to be clarified.

Mr. Jay: Has there been any actual conversation on this subject?

Mr. Brooke: There has been a meeting. Certain questions have been put and are now being further looked into.

Mr. Williams: This is a very serious question. I think the Minister has evaded a reasonable question, and I therefore give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the first opportunity.

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERFISHING CONVENTION (BELGIAN TRAWLERS)

Mr. Edward Evans: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that, between 22nd July and 19th August, seven Belgian trawlers put into the port of Lowestoft having on board nets with a mesh much less than that agreed to by the signatories to the International Overfishing Convention, 1946; that, as the British trawlers have conformed to the Convention, at considerable expense, this action on the part of foreign trawlers has aroused resentment; and what steps he is taking, or proposes to take, to ensure that the provisions of the Convention shall be strictly implemented by all vessels trawling in the waters covered by the terms of the Convention.

The Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries (Mr. Heathcoat Amory): I have received reports to this effect and have brought them to the notice of the Belgian fishery authorities. Under the International Fisheries Convention of 1946, each contracting Government is responsible for ensuring the observance by its fishing fleets of the mesh regulations introduced last April, and I have been assured that the Belgian authorities have given effect to the regulations under a Royal Decree and will be dealing with any infringements by their fishermen.

Mr. Evans: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that these infringements have continued since I drew these cases to his notice and that resentment among local fishermen is mounting? Can he not ask for powers of search and confiscation in order to act on a parity with the outrageous punishments that are inflicted on British ships when they infringe foreign regulations?

Mr. Amory: Under the international agreement so far reached, it has been agreed that it should be the responsibility of each country to enforce compliance with the regulations on its own

nationals. Each country is being asked for its views whether there should be any international action. If the hon. Gentleman has any further cases of alleged contravention of these regulations, I shall be grateful if he will let me know of them.

Mr. T. Williams: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that a complaint has been submitted to the Belgian Government and that they propose to act upon it?

Mr. Amory: That is so.

Mr. Duthie: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that unless our fishery cruisers have the right of search in their own territorial waters of the gear of fishing vessels engaged in fishing operations, the provisions of that Convention are practically valueless?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Animal Landings, Fishguard

Mr. Chapman: asked the Minister of Agriculture how many veterinary officials at Fishguard have had experience in the examination of horses as well as cattle; and what method and period of testing and examination for disease is used on horses and donkeys imported through this port from Ireland.

Mr Amory: One full-time veterinary officer is employed by my Department on the examination of animals landed at Fishguard; when necessary he is assisted by two local veterinary surgeons. All three are experienced in the examination of horses. Horses and donkeys imported from Ireland are individually inspected in daylight, while standing and moving, to determine whether they are in a fit condition to travel.

Mr. Chapman: In view of the widespread public alarm about the kind of horse traffic coming through Fishguard, will the right hon. Gentleman try to employ a specially qualified veterinary inspector—one experienced in horses—at this port, which is the worst one of the lot?

Mr. Amory: All three veterinary inspectors there, the one full-time and the other two part-time, are experienced in horses.

Mr. Chapman: asked the Minister of Agriculture what request has been made by his veterinary officials to the British Transport Commission authorities at Fishguard regarding the withdrawal of facilities for surprise visits by investigators of the Horses and Ponies Protection Association to the lairage at this port.

Mr. Amory: None, Sir. I understand that there is an arrangement at Fishguard for an investigator of the Association to be admitted to the landing place and given reasonable facilities to examine horses, provided the identity of the caller is disclosed at the main entrance.

Mr. Chapman: Will the Minister assure the House that he will not in any way bar surprise visits to any of these ports where there has been all this trouble, so that this trade can continually be checked?

Mr. Amory: Our wish is that an investigator shall have access in all reasonable conditions, but I think it is reasonable to insist that a caller should come through the main entrance and should announce his or her business.

Requisitioned Land, Peacehaven and Saltdean

Mr. P. Roberts: asked the Minister of Agriculture the total income paid by way of rental by farmers farming the requisitioned land at Peacehaven and Saltdean to the East Sussex Agricultural Executive Committee or to his Department since 1939; and what is the average rent per acre now being paid.

Mr. Amory: The total income received from licensees farming requisitioned land at Peacehaven and Saltdean since 1939 is £9,785. The average rent now being received per acre is £2 5s.

Mr. Roberts: Can my right hon. Friend say whether it is a fact that only about half that amount of money has been handed over to the property owners? Does he consider that to be really satisfactory, and is he in a position to make a statement on his views on this matter he promised some time ago?

Mr. Amory: The amount of money that can be handed over to the property owners for requisitioned properties is statutorily fixed, and I have no room for manoeuvre there. As regards the last

part of my hon. Friend's question, I hope to make a statement on this matter within the fairly near future.

Wheat Prices and Subsidies

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that wheat from the recent harvest is being sold in East Anglia at £21 per ton compared with the average guaranteed price of £30 15s. per ton; if he is aware that this disparity discourages farmers from holding on to good grain in the hope of better prices; and if he has made an estimate in the light of these figures of the approximate cost to the taxpayer of grain subsidies on the 1954 harvest.

Mr. Amory: The answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes, Sir," but I do not accept the suggestion in the second part. The standard price for wheat is varied according to a seasonal scale which gives farmers an incentive to hold on to their wheat. The cost of the subsidy payments on home-grown grains of the 1954 harvest to the end of the current financial year was estimated at £61 million in the revised estimate of the Ministry of Food presented on 31st March (H.C. 135).

Mr. Collins: Is the Minister aware that many farmers cannot afford to hold on to their grain, and that even good grain is being sold at the figure mentioned in the Question? Does he not think that, since this money does not benefit the consumer, it can only be going to the millers, and that the continuance of this policy will be disastrous to the taxpayer, to the farmer and to the agricultural industry as a whole?

Mr. Amory: In the light of experience so far, I see no justification for reviewing the present arrangements.

Mr. T. Williams: Is it not true that at the present moment all the bargaining power is in the hands of the millers?

Mr. Amory: I do not think that is so, because the millers have to compete with imported flour.

Pigs

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will make a statement on the present situation concerning the disposal of home-produced pigs.

Mr. Amory: I understand that the number of pigs offered to bacon factories for curing has declined considerably but is still somewhat in excess of what the factories can take. The number sold for pork has also fallen now that the accumulation of pigs has been cleared; and there has been a distinct improvement in the prices realised at the auction markets.

Mr. T. Williams: Is it not the case that no long-term solution can be provided for this pig situation apart from more new bacon factories, and that the alternative is many fewer pigs?

Mr. Amory: I think that the long-term solution is really to be found in a continuing improvement in the quality of pigs and a continuing reduction in the costs of production.

Mr. Williams: But is it not perfectly true that, no matter how high the quality of the pigs may be, there will always be production surplus to requirements so long as the factory accommodation is not there?

Mr. Amory: I should think that the curers would be ready to review their curing facilities in the light of progress in the two directions which I have already indicated.

Mr. G. Williams: asked the Minister of Agriculture when he anticipates he will be in a position to make a complete statement of Government long-term policy with regard to pig production in this country so that pig breeders will know whether it is the policy of the Government that they should continue to increase home production and to incur capital expenditure on the introduction of modern scientific methods into their arrangements for pig production.

Mr. Amory: The Government's policy has already been stated. The White Paper issued after the Annual Review last March said that a primary objective of general policy must now be to secure a more rapid improvement in economic efficiency. It stated also that further expansion of pig production must now depend on improvement of quality and substantial reduction in costs. The steady improvement of efficiency through the use of modern scientific methods is essential for the achievement of these aims.

Mr. Williams: Is the Minister aware that at the moment farmers are being discouraged by the great difference between the retail price and the market price, and will he continue to pursue his present policy of encouraging more pig production at home, because that it the one thing we can produce without requiring the wide open spaces as, for example, in the production of wheat?

Mr. Amory: I think that we have made it clear that the Government's view is that the higher the level of production at home the better, provided that that production is accompanied by the greatest possible efficiency.

Mr. T. Williams: While I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is desirable that we should have the highest quality of pigs, does he not agree—no matter how high the quality—that unless the bacon factories are capable of absorbing the pigs, there will always be a surplus to requirements? Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, if the factories will not extend their accommodation, the Ministry itself might consider doing so?

Mr. Amory: I think that is a hypothesis, and that such a hypothetical situation is not likely to be reached.

Poultry and Eggs (Marketing)

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will now make a statement on the proposed scheme for the marketing of poultry and eggs.

Mr. Amory: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given on 28th October last to the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. P. Wells) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant) and my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Mr. G. Williams).

Myxomatosis

Major Anstruther-Gray: asked the Minister of Agriculture how many cases have been reported of rabbits with antibodies to myxomatosis in their blood; and what evidence exists to show whether this immunity from the disease is hereditary.

Mr. Amory: Up to date, only 15 wild rabbits with antibodies to myxomatosis in their blood have been found in


England and Wales. There is, as yet, no evidence of hereditary immunity to the disease in this country.

Land Drainage

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the damage caused to crops by flooding; and whether he will take action to see that the smaller drainage boards operate efficiently and keep their sluices clear.

Mr. Amory: I have no jurisdiction in cases where it appears that drainage boards are neglecting their functions under the Land Drainage Act, but river boards have certain powers. If the hon. Member has any particular area in mind where crops have been damaged as a result of neglect by a drainage board and will let me have details, I shall be very ready to look into the matter and, if necessary, bring it to the attention of the river board concerned.

Mr. C. Hughes: Does not the Minister agree that the solution to this problem lies in the implementation of the recommendations of the Heneage Committee, and can he say when those recommendations are likely to be implemented?

Mr. Amory: That matter is under consideration by the Government at the present time, but I am not in a position to make a statement at the moment.

Wages

Mr. Osborne: asked the Minister of Agriculture what would be the estimated cost per annum of increasing the agricultural worker's basic wage from £6 to £7 per week, including the extra overtime and piece-work rates.

Mr. Amory: £30 million would be the cost of £1 per week increase in the remuneration of the numbers at present employed in England and Wales, and there would no doubt also be a substantial increase in the cost of overtime and other supplementary payments.

Mr. Osborne: In view of the smallness of this figure, as compared with the £1,900 million which the nation is spending yearly on drink, tobacco, gambling and amusement, does he not think it reasonable that a little better price should be paid for food towards meeting some such increase?

Mr. Amory: As I understand that this matter is at present before the National Wages Board, I must limit myself to supplying my hon. Friend with statistical information.

Mr. Gooch: Does the Minister not agree that farm workers are worth £7 a week?

Mr. Amory: The hon. Gentleman is trying to draw me. He knows the very high opinion I have of farm workers, but I am afraid that, in this case, I cannot be drawn.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Iron Foundry Industry, Ayr

Sir T. Moore: asked the Minister of Labour the result of his efforts in connection with the growing redundancy and unemployment in the iron foundry industry in Ayr.

The Minister of Labour and National Service (Sir Walter Monckton): The position in the iron foundry industry in Ayr has remained substantially unchanged since my hon. Friend asked me a Question in May. Only one iron foundry worker is registered as unemployed, but some short time continues to be worked at one foundry, owing to a shortage of orders for marine castings. I will keep a close watch on future developments.

Sir T. Moore: Is the Minister aware-that his sympathetic interest in their problems is giving much comfort to the good and skilled craftsmen in this area?

Dock Strikes

Mr. M. Lindsay: asked the Minister of Labour if he will publish a White Paper with details of the support given to the dock strike by the Communist Party.

Sir W. Monckton: Before I decide what further action, if any, I should take in connection with the recent dock strike, I must give full consideration to the Final Report of the Court of Inquiry which I set up to investigate the causes and circumstances of the dispute in the London Docks. This will be available to hon. Members tomorrow morning.

Ship-repairing Industry (Strike)

Sir R. Acland: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will make a statement about the strike in the ship-repairing industry.

Sir W. Monckton: This strike began on 11th September in protest against the dismissal on redundancy of three electricians employed by a federated ship-repairing firm, and in support of a contention that the order of discharge should be on the basis of "last in, first out." It now involves some 8,000 workers. I understand that, following a recent communication from the employers, the unions concerned have asked for a meeting with them.

Sir R. Acland: I appreciate that the Minister cannot do anything further in this situation but, as redundancy is likely to cause a good deal of trouble, would he consider asking such a body as the Committee on Human Relations to inquire into, and report on, the procedure that should be followed between employers and workers when redundancy threatens? In particular, if I get him the set of rules which is adopted in this matter by a very go-ahead, privately-owned firm, would he forward it to the employers in this industry in the hope that they might adopt something of the kind?

Sir W. Monckton: If the hon. Member will let me have a copy of the rules to which he refers, I shall consider what I can do.

Factory Inspectors

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Labour how many factory inspectors were appointed as a result of the most recent competition; and of these, how many were graduates in engineering, chemistry or physics, respectively; and how many had more than one year's industrial experience before the appointment was made.

Sir W. Monckton: Seven have been appointed so far, and of these one has a degree in physics and more than a year's industrial experience. Three other candidates, one of whom has a degree in chemistry and more than a year's industrial experience, are expected to take up appointment within the next month or two.

Dr. Stross: In view of the difficulty of obtaining enough suitably trained staff, will the Minister consider the appointment of an independent committee to advise him on the recruiting of personnel to the factory inspectorate?

Sir W. Monckton: I am prepared to consider that suggestion. All the time I am doing my best to secure these recruits. There are difficulties, but we are not as short of them as we were.

Dr. Stross: In order to help the Minister to make up his mind, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment a week tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTER OF EDUCATION (SPEECH)

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Prime Minister whether the speech made by the Minister of Education on 25th October, 1954, concerning the politics of teachers, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister (Sir Winston Churchill): I am sure we do not want national education mixed up with party politics, and this was certainly not the intention of my right hon. Friend. I am also sure that the parents of the children, whatever ticket they vote on, should be in closer friendly touch with the teachers who care so much for their children.

Mr. Thomas: Is the Prime Minister aware that considerable uneasiness was caused in the teaching profession by this incursion by the new Minister into the realm of party politics where teachers are concerned? Is he further aware that there is indignation in the Principality at the anti-Welsh sentiments which the Minister revealed in his speech.

Hon. Members: Answer.

The Prime Minister: I thought that I gave such a very nice answer to the Question that I might leave it at that.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRIES OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE (AMALGAMATION)

Mr. Edward Evans: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of his action in causing the Ministry of Food to


be absorbed into the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, with a consequent dilution of the responsibility of the Minister, in respect of fisheries, he will now appoint an additional Parliamentary Secretary to be administratively responsible only for fishing.

The Prime Minister: It is not considered that fishery interests will in any way suffer by the amalgamation of the Ministry of Food with the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. The two Departments now have a Minister and three Parliamentary Secretaries. That is quite enough.

Mr. Evans: Is not the Prime Minister aware that this functional trichotomy—if I might use the expression—is bound to denigrate the fishing industry? There is a great deal of feeling on this matter up and down the country, and facing the Minister of Fisheries there are such very grave matters as the Icelandic problem and the overfishing question. Is he not further aware that his former allies, the British Housewives' League, are now in league against him and are demanding that the fishing industry be referred to the Monopolies Commission?

The Prime Minister: I shall meditate upon those remarks when I have the opportunity to study them in HANSARD.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. T. W. Jones: asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the importance of Welsh affairs, he will arrange for the Secretary of State for the Home Department and Minister for Welsh Affairs to answer Questions on Welsh matters on a different day from that on which he answers Questions appertaining to his duties as Secretary of State for the Home Department.

The Prime Minister: I think it would be very discourteous to the Welsh people, with all the gifts they have contributed to our affairs, to forbid their Questions from being answered on the same day as those addressed to my right hon. and gallant Friend in his capacity as Secretary of State for the Home Department. I feel the Welsh nation might easily resent this sort of suggested exclusion.

Mr. P. Morris: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in Wales, fine

words butter no parsnips and that the people are asking for a definite reply to this important Question? If he cannot concede it, can he tell us who the new Parliamentary Secretary dealing with Welsh Affairs is to be?

The Prime Minister: We are making that announcement in the ordinary course.

Mr. Maclay: asked the Prime Minister what arrangements will be made for the answering of Questions relating to atomic energy now that there is a new Minister in charge of the Ministry of Works.

The Prime Minister: Only 28 Questions were addressed to the late Minister of Works on this subject and they were almost entirely concerned with questions of routine and the relations between the Authority and its staff. This arrangement will continue under the new Minister of Works and I will myself deal, as I have done in the past, with Questions involving issues of general policy or special information on nuclear matters.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS (LONDON CONFERENCE)

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to state the date of the next Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference.

The Prime Minister: I have recently been in communication with the Prime Ministers of the other members of the Commonwealth about the holding of a further meeting between us. Many events of great importance in the international field have taken place since our last meeting at the time of the Coronation. These will be among the principal subjects for our consideration when, as we have now agreed, a meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers is held in London, opening on 31st January.
I know that the House will join me in welcoming this opportunity for consultation with the Heads of other Commonwealth Governments, from which I am confident that, as on former occasions, general benefit will result.

Mr. Henderson: I welcome that announcement, but does the Prime Minister recollect the communiqué issued after


the 1953 Conference? It stated that the Prime Ministers had considered the state of relations with the Soviet Union and had agreed that every possible step should be taken to settle the differences at present dividing the world. Would not the suggested meeting between the Prime Minister and Prime Minister Malenkov be a possible step towards settling those differences? Further, would he endeavour to secure the approval of his colleagues at this Conference to such a meeting—in principle, at any rate?

The Prime Minister: No subject will be excluded from the discussions of the visiting Ministers.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he will state the business for next week?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY, 8TH NOVEMBER—Motion to approve Highway Code.

At 7 o'clock, following arrangements made through the usual channels, a debate will take place on South-East Asia and the Manila Treaty, on a Motion in suitable terms.

It is proposed to suspend the Rule for one hour.

TUESDAY, 9TH NOVEMBER—Debate on the Reports and Accounts: Gas Council and British Electricity Authority for 1953–54.

WEDNESDAY, 10TH NOVEMBER—Report and Third Reading: Civil Defence (Armed Forces) Bill [Lords].

Committee stage: Pests Bill [Lords].

Consideration of Double Taxation Relief Orders.

THURSDAY, 11TH NOVEMBER—Report and Third Reading: Food and Drugs Amendment Bill [Lords].

Committee and remaining stages of Consolidation Measures: Pharmacy Bill [Lords].

Trustee Savings Bank Bill [Lords].

Post Office Savings Bank Bill [Lords].

Consideration of Amendments to Transport Charges &c. (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, which may be received from another place.

FRIDAY, 12TH NOVEMBER—It is proposed to afford an opportunity for a debate on the Reports from the Select Committee on the Army and Air Force Acts.

Mr. L. M. Lever: Is the Leader of the House aware that no fewer than 313 signatures, more than half the Members of the House, have been appended to the Motion in the name of the hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons) relating to pensions and comfort allowances for the ageing limbless of the 1914–18 war? Is he also aware that many hon. Members are in full sympathy with the Motion, and would have supported it by signature were it possible? Shall we be allowed time to debate this Motion before the end of the present Session?

Mr. Crookshank: I am aware of the sympathetic reception which has been given to this Motion. The House knows that this is one of the many matters which are being considered by the Government, but at the moment I could not promise any time for a debate.

Mr. K. Thompson: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the possibility of providing time for a discussion on the White Paper on the Exchequer Equalisation Grants, which was laid at the end of the Summer Recess?

Mr. Crookshank: I noted what was said last week.

Mr. Mikardo: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when he will allow time for consideration of the Seventh Report of the Scientific Advisory Council, which was laid during the Recess? If he does not propose to allow time, will he tell the House what is the good of laying these reports from high-level committees on vital topics if the House is never to have a chance of discussing them?

Mr. Crookshank: I must admit that I did not consider that that was a very urgent matter for discussion during the remaining short period of this Session.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Reverting to the question put by my hon. Friend the


Member for Walton (Mr. K. Thompson), will the Leader of the House bear in mind the injustice worked by the present operation of the Exchequer equalisation grants on many counties and county boroughs, arising out of the lack of uniformity of assessment and other matters?

Mr. Crookshank: I am sure my right hon. Friend has that matter well in mind.

Mr. S. Silverman: While these claims for time are being considered, may I ask whether the Leader of the House recalls that I have on a number of occasions, as have other hon. Members, asked him for time when the House might consider the Report of the distinguished Committee on Capital Punishment which sat for a number of years, heard a great deal of evidence and produced a most important Report on some aspects of which they were quite unanimous? Does the right hon. Gentleman not consider that the time has now come when we should have an opportunity to consider the state of the law which this Commission unanimously found to be unsatisfactory?

Mr. Crookshank: I have not forgotten that either, but if we are to debate all these things we shall never prorogue at all.

Mr. Black: Does my right hon. Friend hope to find time in the immediate future for a debate upon the White Paper on the Gatwick Airport proposals?

Mr. Crookshank: If there were to be a debate on civil aviation, on one of the nationalised industries, it is possible that that might come into the debate.

Mr. C. Hughes: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether time is likely to be given for a debate on the Government's White Paper on Wales?

Mr. Crookshank: I answered that question last week and I said that I hoped that it would be before the Prorogation. I hope to be able to announce it soon, but if all these threatened Motions of censure that I have read about were to take place, that might be squeezed out.

Mr. J. Hudson: If only half a day is being set aside next week for a discussion of the Highway Code—I appreciate that it was right to provide half a day for another important matter—will the Government reconsider the position, bearing in mind that this is a very important matter affecting the whole community in view of the continuing road accidents? Will the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, consider providing more time to debate that subject?

Mr. Crookshank: We all agree about the importance of discussing these matters, but the Highway Code has been before the House for some considerable time, and I should think that if speeches on Monday were not too long a great number of expressions of opinion might be heard before seven o'clock.

Mr. P. Morris: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that if he failed to provide a day for discussion of the Government action in Wales, it would only add to the list of censure Motions which are coming before him?

Mr. Crookshank: That sounds to me like a vicious circle resulting in no time being given for anything.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — CIVIL DEFENCE (ARMED FORCES) [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the training in civil defence of persons serving terms of part-time service under the National Service Act, 1948, and other members of the armed forces of the Crown, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(a) of any increase attributable to the said Act of the present Session in the sums payable out of such moneys under section seven of the Civil Defence Act, 1948;
(b) of sums required under the said Act of the present Session for reimbursing amounts otherwise payable out of moneys provided for navy, army or air force services.

Resolution agreed to.

CIVIL DEFENCE (ARMED FORCES) BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(CIVIL DEFENCE TRAINING FOR PART-TIME NATIONAL SERVICE MEN, ETC.)

3.40 p.m.

Mr. F. J. Bellenger: I beg to move, in page 1, line 6, after "Minister," to insert:
who shall be a member of the Defence Committee.
It is quite obvious that the Bill deals only in a small way with the very important subject of Civil Defence, which we are precluded from discussing today, but I want to call attention to the position of the Home Secretary, who is the designated Minister. I suggest that his position ought to be much more clearly defined in relation to the important measures that he will have to undertake and in relation to which he will to a certain extent be dependent upon the good will of the Service Ministers.
Whether mobile columns or something else are required depends upon the part that Civil Defence is to play if we should again be involved in war. At present, the Home Secretary is called into consultation with his Service colleagues on the Defence Committee when that Committee is considering matters of defence. He is not a permanent member of the

Committee. There is no statutory authority for the setting up of the Committee or its members, but any right hon. Gentleman who has been a Member of a Government will know that the Defence Committee, which is one of our most important Cabinet Committees, consists of the Prime Minister, the Service Ministers and their chief advisers, and certain other Ministers. It does not include the Home Secretary.
The Service Ministers have a clearly defined rôle in the Committee. They are there to consider matters of defence. I suggest that Civil Defence now assumes just as important a rôle as do the Service Departments. In other words, Civil Defence is likely to be the fourth arm of defence in time of war. Under the Bill, the Home Secretary will have no authority to call up National Service reservists for the purposes for which he wants them, which he has already explained to the House in the Second Reading debate. That, presumably, will be done by the Service Ministers and, as we understood the debate that took place last week, the Service Minister in the most immediate case is to be the Secretary of State for Air. The Home Secretary will, therefore, be dependent to a large extent upon the good will of the Service Ministers, and especially the Secretary of State for Air.
At present, that Minister has quite a large number of National Service reservists for whom he has no further use after they have finished their two years' training. Under the Bill, he is able to lend these men to the Home Secretary if he wants them—as, indeed, he told us he did—to the extent of 15,000 in the first year and 30,000 in the second year. In this explanation of the matter during the Second Reading debate the Home Secretary told us that these Royal Air Force reservists would be available in the first year if war should break out, but he did not say what would happen after that.
3.45 p.m.
If, in the event of war, the Secretary of State for Air decides after the first year that he wants these men back in the Royal Air Force, what will be the position of the Home Secretary, especially if he has not been in close integration with the Service Ministers? In peace-time the Defence Committee, which goes back for


some 50 years under the name of the Committee of Imperial Defence, decides and formulates plans which are to come into operation in the event of war. Twice within our time—in the 1914–18 and 1939–45 wars—that Committee has virtually become the inner War Cabinet, controlling all the operations and affairs of State, subject always to the approval of the Cabinet itself.
I want to refer to a book dealing with the functions of this Committee. It was written by Lord Hankey, who is an undoubted authority on matters of this kind. The book was published in 1946 and is called "Diplomacy by Conference." Lord Hankey explains what happened in the First World War, and goes on to say that in the Committee of Imperial Defence—as it then was,
… there should be a corresponding close contact in peace between the fighting Services and the civilians and civil servants on whom responsibility for many vital services ancillary to operations of war falls.
He went on:
This can best be done by discussing these matters on equal terms round a table. In other words, the central organisation should be inter-Departmental.
I maintain that the Defence Committee as at present constituted is not as fully inter-Departmental as it should be.
My Amendment, therefore, provides that the Home Secretary should be just as important and constant a member of the Defence Committee as any of the Service members. In time of war—and, certainly, in time of peace, which may cover a period of preparation for the unfortunate circumstances of war if they should occur—the Home Secretary, being responsible for Civil Defence, should be sitting regularly in the Committee, discussing matters of Civil Defence not only for its own sake but also in relation to the plans being made by the Service Departments, so that he can be thoroughly informed upon what the Service Ministers have in prospect.
In this connection, I was very much surprised to see that no representative of Civil Defence or the Home Office was present at the recent exercise "Battle Royal" carried out in Germany. That operation provided an opportunity not only of exercising the Air Force and the Army, but also of bringing in Civil Defence experts. As far as I can gather not one representative from the Home

Office was there to see what happened when the Air Force and the Army operated together.
It is true that Civil Defence is mainly a civilian matter, because civilians will be the principal sufferers if atom bombs are dropped, but if one is to alleviate the sufferings of the civilians and also keep the wheels of industry turning it is obvious that the Home Secretary will need something more than purely civilian organisations in order to maintain those services upon which the Armed Forces will depend.
Therefore, although it may be said that this is a matter of Government administration, and that the Home Secretary is frequently called to meetings of the Defence Committee, I think something more is required. If the Home Secretary is really serious about the purposes of the Bill he should agree to the Amendment. Otherwise, it will look as if we are only tampering with the subject and not coping with it as much as we should. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who was Home Secretary, and who was, I believe, on a sub-committee on Civil Defence during the war, told us in his Second Reading speech how difficult a situation he found himself in at that time. I suggest that it may have been due to the fact that even then the Home Secretary, who was also responsible for Civil Defence, was only a subsidiary or ancillary member of the Defence Committee.
Matters discussed in the Defence Committee in time of peace may not be so important as those discussed there in time of war, and it may be said that in time of peace it is not as important as in time of war to discuss Civil Defence in the Defence Committee. Twice, however, we have been confronted with an emergency. It was due to the fact that complete plans had been arranged, largely through discussions in the Defence Committee, that we were able to enter upon the 1939 to 1945 war with fewer mishaps than befell us when we entered the 1914 to 1918 war.
I hope that the Committee will support my Amendment. It may not at the moment be so necessary as it would be in time of war, but I believe that something more is necessary than the liaison to which the Home Secretary referred in his Second Reading speech—the liaison


between himself and his Service colleagues. There should be close consultation and collaboration between the Service Chiefs and Sir Sidney Kirkman, the Civil Defence Chief of Staff, as he may now be called, who, under the Home Secretary, is in charge of Civil Defence matters. Sir Sidney Kirkman was a member of the Army Council some years ago; he is a prominent soldier, and may have excellent relations with his Service colleagues. No doubt he has, but more than that is required, and I think he should be brought into the Defence Committee just as much as the Service chiefs if we are to have the fullest possible benefit of the Bill.

Brigadier O. L. Prior-Palmer: I do not think the question is whether this suggested provision is more necessary in peace-time or in war-time. The question is whether it is a suitable arrangement. In my view, it is unnecessary for this reason. The Prime Minister is Chairman of the Defence Committee and has the power to invite, whenever he deems it wise to do so, any other Minister to attend the Committee. Therefore, whenever anything is to be discussed that relates to Civil Defence, or to the Armed Forces in relation to Civil Defence, surely the Home Secretary will be called in. It is not necessary for him to be there on other occasions when matters are discussed that are purely Army or Navy matters.
Furthermore, I believe that there has never been an instance of the House or a Committee of the House deciding by legislation who shall sit in the Defence Committee of the Cabinet. I do not think that we have here a strong reason for departing from precedent. The Amendment would fetter the Prime Minister in his choice of Ministers. So would this Committee or the House if it were to adopt the principle that it should decide who should sit in any Cabinet Committee.
I would rather put this plea to my right hon. and gallant Friend. I think the time is drawing near, as I said in the debate on Second Reading, when we need a commander-in-chief of the whole of Home Defence, which includes Civil Defence. If we were to appoint such an officer we should be taking the right way to get him through the door of the

Cabinet Committee. The right way to ensure getting a man into the Defence Committee is to appoint him as commander-in-chief of Home Defence, with Civil Defence under his command.

Mr. John Strachey: I want to add only a few words to the detailed consideration that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) has adduced in moving the Amendment, and they are of a more general character. It seems to me that the essence of the thing is the purpose behind the Amendment, and that that meets the arguments advanced by the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer). The Amendment is one way in which we who are supporting it express our feeling, which we expressed so strongly on Second Reading, and which we wish to express again here, that nothing in the Bill yet allays our fear that Civil Defence still remains the Cinderella of our general defence arrangements.
Whether or not the Government are going to tell us that this way, by legislation, to which the hon. and gallant Member objected, is the way to do it, the fact remains that it seems to us that the admission of the designated Minister, the Home Secretary, to the Defence Committee would do as much as or more than anything else to place Civil Defence on the level of one of the other Defence Services in the general scheme of our defence arrangements. We put very strongly to the Committee that the time has come when that is becoming a national necessity.
All the arguments we hear about the appalling character of any future conflict, all those glimpses of a third world war we were given by the eminent Field Marshal the other day, all those speeches of that character seem to us exceedingly rash until and unless we take our Civil Defence seriously. It is, after all, a proverbial adage that those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: Or hydrogen bombs.

Mr. Strachey: Yes, certainly, they should not throw hydrogen bombs, and we feel that to do something to make our house a little bit less of glass is now of the highest importance.
Anything we can do by way of Amendment to the Bill may not take us very far in that direction, but, nevertheless, we would like to hear from the Government that they think the designated Minister who is in charge of this branch of our defence should sit on the Defence Committee just as much as the Secretary of State for War or the First Lord of the Admiralty or the Secretary of State for Air. It seems to us that the time has come when this is just as important.
With great respect to the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing, for a Minister to be called into a Cabinet committee really is not the same thing as his being a member of it. Everyone of us who has sat on those bodies knows that only too well. It makes the whole difference to the possibility of the Minister in question putting the point of view of the Service for which he is responsible whether he is a regular attender of the meetings. If he is only called in at intervals his position is incomparably weakened.
Whether or not the correct way to achieve this is by legislation is another matter, but, in any event, it seems to us in all seriousness that this apparently revolutionary step of ensuring that the Minister for Civil Defence shall be a member of the highest defence council is a point to which the Government ought to pay very careful attention. This is not a frivolous Amendment. We should like to hear what the Government have to say on the subject.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. George Wigg: My right hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) has done a most useful service in putting down this Amendment, although I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Brig. Prior-Palmer) that legislation is probably not the way in which to deal with this problem. After all, if it crept on to the Statute Book it would still not be beyond the realm of the ingenuity of the Front Bench opposite to find a way round it. We could easily have Defence Committee A and Defence Committee B. The Home Secretary would be on Defence Committee A, which would not meet, and the Prime Minister would be on Defence Committee B, which would meet as often as he wished.
We are not concerned so much about machinery as about the organisation of Civil Defence. My instincts, like those of the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing, are in favour of militarising the organisation, but we must recognise that there would be great difficulties about it. I thought that during the war we were beginning to work towards a formula which secured military precision and military order and, at the same time, retained the essential democratic process. We must retain that democratic process. If the worst happened, and we had widespread breakdown, we should need all the help the Armed Forces could give. On the other hand, we must not allow to grow in this country the feeling that all we have to do is to call in the soldier, while the civilian need do nothing. This is, in essence, civil defence; it must be civil defence. The civilian population must feel that the military are coming in to help them to salvage their homes and their lives.
I, too, have seen the military machine at close quarters and I am a little frightened by the constant erosion into our civilian world of ex-military gentlemen. I am not sure that long service in, the Armed Forces is an essential part of the equipment of a democrat. After all, we can easily fall into the frame of mind—I myself am often guilty of it on occasions—which tends to expect too instantaneous obedience, perhaps in our own families. Sometimes one values discussion for oneself and burkes at it a little when others want it, too.
There are aspects of our national life which perhaps to an increasing extent are influenced by the military, and while I am saying nothing disrespectful of or discourteous to the distinguished officer now responsible for Civil Defence, I wonder whether, in the long run, we should not have been wiser to look for somebody who knew a great deal about local government organisation and who could easily carry local government administrators with him. I do not for a single moment suggest that the officer now holding the position is at cross-purposes with local authorities, but local government in this country is an intricate business and it would be valuable for him to have not only the knowledge of it which one can acquire from books


but also the instinctive feel for it which comes to many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee who have served their apprenticeship in local government. I am sure the Minister bears this point in mind.
I am sure that many hon. Members opposite share our view that we want the best sort of Civil Defence we can get within our capacity to pay. If any hon. Members are thinking in terms of large numbers of mobile columns and of thousands of men sitting round playing draughts and cards, waiting for the next war, they are baying for the moon. It would not work. However good the quality of the men recruited in the first place, their morale would certainly be sapped in that kind of existence. It just is not "on."
We sympathise with the Home Secretary, who is new to the office, but we must tell him that Civil Defence is being treated as a Cinderella. I do not think that the problem can be worked out merely by making the Home Secretary a member of the Defence Committee. We want an assurance from him, which I hope we shall be given before the Bill is on the Statute Book, that he will fight really hard. We know that he will have to fight. Even if there were a Labour Administration the Home Secretary would have to fight with the Service Departments in order to see that Civil Defence was not regarded as a Cinderella. It is certain that at the moment it is regarded as a Cinderella. If it were not, we should see the Brigade of Guards on the Horse Guards with a stirrup pump.

Mr. Strachey: Only one?

Mr. Wigg: If they attached importance to Civil Defence we should probably find them on guard outside Buckingham Palace with a stirrup pump.

Mr. Ian Harvey: Or the Horse Guards?

Mr. Wigg: Or outside Royal Palaces, or wherever they held their ceremonials. Instead of that, they have a lump of wood, with a pipe down the middle, which serves no useful purpose except for ornamentation. We call it a rifle. It is completely out of date and rightly belongs to a museum.

Mr. Harvey: Oh.

Mr. Wigg: The hon. Gentleman should remember that we recently had a most authoritative statement from a distinguished gentleman who expressed his doubts about the new rifle because it could not be handled for ceremonial purposes. I should be out of order if I pursued that point.
The Home Secretary's job is not to persuade but to fight in order to see that the Services regard Civil Defence as an essential part of defence. Just as the civilian population cannot expect the soldier to rush in and help them while they do nothing, equally the Armed Forces cannot expect the civilian services to come in and tackle their job for them. We are all in this together. If war breaks out, then unless this country can be kept going and life can carry on, we might as well hoist the white flag or suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) that he should form an Administration on the policy in which he so passionately believes.
Following the Government's White Paper, we know the kind of schemes needed to deal with the type of war which has been described to us. We must start thinking about it now. Not only must we think about it, but things must begin to happen now—and nothing is happening yet. There is probably not a single unit in the Army carrying out efficiently even the defence which will be necessary to protect its own installations in its own barracks in the case of air action of the kind which the previous Home Secretary described—the kind of air action which is clearly at the back of the mind of those who wrote the last Defence White Paper.
I wholeheartedly support my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) that we ought to be given by the Government a categorical assurance—even though this may be a small and perhaps not a very important Bill—that when he gets down to this job the Home Secretary will fight a continuous battle, with the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House, to see that this subject is given the importance which it deserves.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Major Gwilym Lloyd-George): It might be useful if I intervene for a moment at this stage to deal with points


raised by hon. Members, to whose speeches I have listened with interest. I fully sympathise with the desire behind the Amendment, which is simply to make it certain that the Home Secretary is a member of the Defence Committee, thus practically ensuring that the fears expressed by the right hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey)—that Civil Defence will become a Cinderella—are not realised. I personally do not have any intention whatever of playing the rôle of Cinderella.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Or the wicked sister?

Major Lloyd-George: I do not suppose that I should look very well in the rôle. At any rate, I have no intention of playing that rôle.
I say at once that I sympathise with the desire of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, West, but I do not think that the Amendment is necessary. It would mean, technically, that there would have to be, in addition to the Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Health, who are also designated Ministers under the Civil Defence Act. Even if it were desirable that the Home Secretary should be a member of the Defence Committee, I am inclined to agree with the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) that it would be undesirable in principle, and contrary to precedent, to make this a subject of legislation.
The Defence Committee is concerned even today with a great many things outside Civil Defence or home defence, as I should call it. All I can say is that whenever anything remotely concerned with Civil Defence is discussed, the Home Secretary is there——

Mr. Hughes: The Secretary of State for Scotland is not.

Major Lloyd-George: When anything concerns him particularly, he certainly is.

Mr. Hughes: I meant here.

Major Lloyd-George: I am sorry. I was talking about the Committee and the hon. Gentleman apparently meant here. All I wanted to say was this. The Home Secretary is invariably invited—and I speak from personal experience—on any matter that is remotely concerned with Civil Defence.
I remember the debate in 1946, in which the present Leader of the Opposition, who was then Prime Minister, was dealing with this very point. It is not without interest to read what he said on that occasion. He said, referring to the Defence Committee:
In the same way, there will be problems in which one will certainly need to have the Home Secretary, when the home defence angle comes up, …
He went on to say, referring to the Committee:
It sits with a nucleus of Ministers, and other Ministers are called in from time to time, but it would be a waste of time to have Ministers sitting on the Committee when they were not really concerned. They should always be there when they are needed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd November, 1946; Vol. 430, c. 1190–1.]
I think that it worked perfectly well in that way. While, as I have said, I fully sympathise with what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind, I do not see that there is any need for the Amendment at all.
There are one or two points which I think may well arise in the course of our discussion with which I should like to deal. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. and gallant Member for Dudley repeated something that I said during the Second Reading of the Bill—that this is a small Bill. It was never intended to be anything else. I want the Committee to appreciate that fact. It arose out of the policy which was commenced by the right hon. Gentleman and which we went on with—the policy of mobile columns—and it is really a question of taking advantage of the offer of people available to man these mobile columns and to be trained. Section 1 of the Act of 1948 does not make it clear that the Home Secretary has the right to train these people, and that is the reason for this Bill being introduced.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Wigg: I am sure it will save time if we get this matter cleared up. On this side of the Committee, we cannot accept for a moment that the origin of the Bill is the 1948 Act. Its origin was in the statement in the House on 2nd March by the present Minister of Works, who foreshadowed this legislation because the R.A.F. was unable to provide training for all its reservists.

Major Lloyd-George: This is really the logical consequence of what has been happening. The policy of mobile columns was initiated by the previous Administration, and, whatever was said in March, the effect of this Bill is to make it possible for those men who are now available—as it happens from the R.A.F.—to be trained for this purpose.
The hon. Member for Dudley said that the Bill was small. Do not let us try and make it a big Bill. I repeat that the Government are now very actively looking into the whole question, which is a very different question from what it was a year ago. This is purely a step to allow a start to be made.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman about keeping this as Civil Defence. It is very important that this should be done. While, as he said, military aid would be very welcome at times—and that general question is being looked at—it is in the main a question of Civil Defence. I had experience in the last war of the Civil Defence mobile columns, in connection with food rather than with rescue work, and that work was done entirely by civilians. I think that anyone who has had experience of these columns would agree that it was one of the finest organisations; in the recent floods also it did excellent work. I suppose one of the most difficult times to hold a rehearsal is a Sunday afternoon after lunch, and the recent exercise was extraordinarily well done.
I know that the hon. Gentleman is worried about intrusion of military people into our affairs, but it may well be that there are more about than there used to be. The hon. Gentleman himself, if he looks round these benches, can see many hon. Members who could at one time be called "military." But the point is that this is essentially Civil Defence, and when we look to augmentation of that defence we shall have to go to the Services.
As I said earlier, do not let us pretend that this is a big Measure; it is a small Measure.

Mr. Ede: This is a small Measure in size, but its content is very big indeed. It is true that the only Service Minister we see here today is the Under-Secretary of State for Air, who comes offering gifts, but only gifts of

surplus. There are other Departments, military Departments, and this Bill applies to them as much as to the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Department. Let us be under no illusion about that.
As I said the other day, this brings every member of the Armed Forces into liability for Civil Defence and into liability for training, from the Chief of the Imperial General Staff down to the last boy to join the band. If the need arises, the Government will not have any doubt on that. They will not need a new Bill to bring in a sailor or soldier. Every member of the Armed Forces—National Service, Regular, Territorial, R.N.V.R. or of whatever description is now made liable for Civil Defence work and to undergo training. Let us keep that clearly in our minds in our discussion today.
Apart from the fact that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman still pleads that the Bill is only a little Bill, I welcome everything he has said. This is not a small Bill in its ultimate effects. Therefore, on that point, I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) rather understated the position. I am sure that the Home Secretary will not disagree that if needs be the Government, through co-operation between the various Departments concerned, can assign any member of the Armed Forces to any Civil Defence need that there may be, not confined to mobile columns. We might even have the Chief of the Imperial General Staff detailed out with one of the food columns dishing out extra sweet tea.
There used to be a saying in the Army when I was in it that if a soldier was good, the sergeant major would bring him a cup of tea in the morning. The Bill at last makes it possible for the sergeant-major to do it for the civilians of the country. In my experience, he never did it for the members of the Armed Forces. I merely say that to discount the idea that the Bill is something small. I could have foreseen circumstances in which it might have been said that in this unpretentious Measure the Government were here trying to sneak through the liabilities for everybody that I have just mentioned.
After having had some experience, I am not satisfied that the Home Secretary will be able to get all that he wants on the conditions that he has laid down as his


own personal contribution. After all, at a Cabinet meeting the Home Secretary is present throughout—he puts in a word on any subject that arises; but other Ministers come to the Cabinet. On occasion, one sees in the Press that the Minister of Transport, for example, was present. He comes in when his business is called and he leaves when it is over. That is not the same as being a member of the Cabinet.
That is what used to happen. Things may have improved. If there is any discussion on the Committee of Defence with the Prime Minister in the chair in present circumstances, it may be that somebody gets a word in edgeways. But the Home Secretary's picture of it was that if Civil Defence is coming up, he will be there. After waiting outside while the other people have been dealing with the earlier items on the agenda, he will go in when his part of the matter is being discussed and then he will leave. In view of what the Prime Minister said in the House in his interruption to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) in the Suez debate, the Home Secretary and the forces for which he will be responsible are as much a part of the defence of the country as any for which the Under-Secretary for State for Air or either of the other Service Ministers is responsible.
I hope that in the consideration of the defence of this country under the arrangements that, we understand, are now under consideration, the Home Secretary will be able to get that place which will enable him to be present when the general considerations of the resources available are under discussion. In my view—and this is shared, I think, by all my hon. and right hon. Friends—the developments of the last 12 months must lead to a considerable recasting of the whole of our ideas about the deployment of manpower.
That is one reason I am somewhat dubious about the arrangement by which the Home Secretary is to have airmen for about the first 12 months and then we are not told what will happen when those trained and disciplined airmen disappear. That kind of thing has to be thought out, and when the three Services are sharing the men out among themselves the right hon. and gallant Gentleman ought to be present to make quite sure that he gets his share.
I share my hon. Friend's misgivings about the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer), although I pay him the tribute that throughout he has always been very interested and insistent on the important part that Civil Defence would have to play. I hope that the Home Secretary will realise that the Amendment is put down in no unfriendly spirit to him but in an endeavour to ensure that he and the service for which he particularly stands must in future be regarded as at least the equal of the other three Services in all these considerations.
I agree with the constitutional point that has been taken that this would be the first time that the Committee of Defence has become known to the law. None the less, there are many things that are not known to the law that have a considerable influence on the disposition of this country in both civil and military affairs. We shall hope that the Home Secretary—let us hope, not unhelped by the discussion we have had this afternoon—will be in a stronger position than any previous Home Secretary in discussing the matters with which the Bill is concerned in the widest aspects that the Bill can be used to obtain.
We have had a useful discussion. After any further discussion that may take place, I would suggest to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) that in all the circumstances it might not be necessary to press the Amendment to a Division. But we hope that the Home Secretary will realise that this does not mean that we do not feel very strongly on the position that the holder of his office ought to hold when general matters of defence are being considered.

Mr. Ian Harvey: I intervene briefly to express my support from this side of the Committee for the principle underlying the Amendment. It follows automatically that if we say—and it has been said from a very high quarter by my right hon. and gallant Friend's predecessor—that Civil Defence is the fourth arm of defence, it must be represented equally with the other three Services. I have not had the same experience as the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) of Cabinet procedure and of standing outside doors and not getting a word in edgeways——

Mr. Ede: I did not say that I did not get a word in edgeways. I never attended a Committee under the chairmanship of the present Prime Minister.

Mr. Harvey: Obviously, it was wrong of me to assume that the right hon. Gentleman had occupied such a position. I hope, however, that in any future planning that might take place my right hon. and gallant Friend the Home Secretary will bear in mind this important principle. I very much support the view that the Bill contains a much bigger principle than the actual practical expression of legislation that it contains.
The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has once again returned to his favourite hare about the origin of this legislation. It is true that one of the problems—a problem arising partially from the legislation of his own party when in Government—has been to find ways and means of employing these airmen. It is also true that this particular need to find men to man the mobile columns was coincidental and, therefore, this Bill is the product of coincidence and its origin does not lie purely in the situation which the hon. and gallant Member for Dudley outlined and is, no doubt, about to outline again.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Wigg: It is important once again to return to this point. I will send the hon. Member a copy of HANSARD for 2nd March where, in column 1035, he will see that the legislation this afternoon was outlined in the defence debate, which is why I am so surprised to see it farmed out to the Home Office. The hon. Member himself was there at that time. He was also present at the Committee proceedings in Standing Committee A when this admission was reluctantly unearthed by the Under-Secretary of State for Air. I assure him I am not making any party points. He knows me too well for that. If we can get the hon. Member to recognise that this is a problem that had its origin with that admission of the Government, then we can join together in an all-party approach and try to find the solution today.

Mr. Harvey: The hon. Member, of course, did not disappoint me. I still maintain just as fervently that this has a dual origin and if we can agree on that

we can go forward together. But it is quite unfair to assume that my right hon. and gallant Friend is using what would be a very inadequate reason for this particular legislation.
I support the principle underlying this Amendment just as I support the practical objection which the right hon. Member for South Shields, who has very long experience, has expressed. But I hope my right hon. Friend will not accept this Amendment, but will consider very carefully the principle underlying it.

Mr. John Dugdale: I should like to support my right hon. Friend's Amendment. The Home Secretary expressed sympathy and said he had a general appreciation of the desire to help—or words to that effect. But, at the same time, he said that he was unable to do anything about it. He gave various reasons why, broadly, that if he was to be on the committee a number of other Ministers would have to be there, too. They are, no doubt, valid reasons which I can appreciate, but I would remind him of what I was told by the late Lord Addison. When he first came to office he called all his officials around him and told them, "When I ask if something is practical you can give me six perfectly good reasons why it should be done and six equally good reasons why it should not be done. Please give me the reasons why it should be done first."
If the Home Secretary does this he will see many good reasons why it should be done. We want to help him. We realise it is more difficult to work from outside a committee than it is from inside it. Whatever he may say, those of us who have had experience of waiting for defence committees, or for Cabinet meetings, know what it is like. I have sat outside a Cabinet for a very long time when no less a person than Lord Montgomery was also waiting. I have had to wait on various occasions but I imagine that it is not often that Lord Montgomery has to wait.
It is very difficult for Ministers to wait until they are called, and even if they have the right to be there, to be present only on special occasions. I think it would be very helpful if the Minister could accept the spirit of the Amendment; I see the difficulty of accepting an Amendment which will tie arrangements inside the Cabinet to this extent. But he


should give an assurance that if the Amendment be withdrawn he will do his utmost to see that he becomes a member of this committee. I agree that he cannot promise that, but if he can say that it is his intention to get on this committee and he will ask the Prime Minister, to make him a member of it, that would go a long way to meet what my right hon. Friend has in mind.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) said that there was no need for him to sit there because he could be called in from time to time. I wonder whether it would be suggested that there was no need for the Secretary of State for Air to sit there, because he could go in when air matters were discussed, or that the Secretary of State for War be called only when war matters were being discussed. Obviously, those Departments would object very strongly and say they ought to be permanent members of the Defence Committee and I hope that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, who has responsibility for this particular branch of defence, will take just as strong a line as other members, and assure his place on it in future.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I have not had the unfortunate experience of waiting outside the doors of the Cabinet to be consulted, but I find the reasons produced by the Home Secretary for rejecting this Amendment very inconclusive indeed.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said if the Home Secretary is to be invited to a Defence Committee then the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Health must be invited, too, because they are the designated Ministers under the terms of the 1948 Bill. I want to see the Secretary of State for Scotland on this particular Committee. Indeed, I want to see him in the House when these things are discussed.
Surely that is a very modest request indeed, when the affairs of the civilian population are being discussed. Yet the designated Minister does not condescend to sit and listen to the debate. We have had the unfortunate experience in two debates on Civil Defence now that each has been opened by the Home Secretary and concluded by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, and although these gentlemen have no powers

at all in Scotland and although the Secretary of State for Scotland is the designated Minister, none of the Ministers for Scotland has spoken at all. That is a complete neglect of the civilian population for Scotland, which is, of course, traditional.

Mr. Percy Morris: I hope that my hon. Friend will not press the point too much, as the Prime Minister will make the Home Secretary not only the Minister for Welsh Affairs but a Minister for Scotland as well.

Mr. Hughes: I know you too well, Sir Rhys, to think you would allow me to explore that particular avenue.
What are we asking in this Amendment? There is a committee which is supposed to be called together to consider defence of this country. I thought that defence of the country meant defence of its civilians. I think it is imperative, in view of the appalling state of civilian defence, that instead of Service Ministers being the sole Ministers concerned there should be somebody there putting the case on every possible occasion of the people in the front line, the people who are to be bombed.
I heard Lord Montgomery on television one night say that the safest place in the next war would be in the Army, but not all the civilian population can get into the Army. I do not know whether he will solve the problem by inviting all the women to go into the women's Services. The way the civilian population is being treated by defence Ministers is something which the House should rectify in this Amendment.
The Secretary of State for Air is in the Defence Committee and he is out to look after the interests of the Air Force. That is why he is there. That is why there is a sum of £500 million in the Air Estimates for the purpose of obtaining bombers with which to bomb the civilian populations of other countries. In the Air Ministry there is no question of priorities for the civil population. I want priorities for the civil population and not for the Services. Surely that is not an unreasonable request.
Not only are there priorities in this question, but super-priorities, though those super-priorities are not for the civilian population. As the Prime Minister has told us, they are for the


heavy bombers. If the Home Secretary were a member of this Defence Committee he could say when the question of these bombers was being considered, "Oh, no, you are not going to get £500 million this year for heavy bombers until we get something for Civil Defence. You know very well that if this money is spent on heavy bombers they will go to some part of the world to carry out their mission, and the immediate response will be that heavy bombers from the bombed country will come over here and bomb our civil population."
A Minister who was interested in the civil population would also argue, "Every £1 million we give to you for heavy bombers, makes more dangerous and more difficult the position of the civil population after whom I am looking." That is why we on this side of the Committee are anxious to see the right hon. and gallant Gentleman a member of the Defence Committee.
Let us imagine what will happen when the Defence Committee is in session giving consideration to the amounts needed for the Service Estimates. The Admiralty will say, "We want £400 million to spend on the Navy." If this Amendment were passed the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State for Scotland would reply, "Oh, yes, but what do you want a Navy for if you cannot protect the civilian population against atom bombers?" The Admiralty would reply, "We go back to Trafalgar. We are an ancient institution and there would be an impossible precedent if we did not get the money we asked for." If there were a civilian in the Admiralty—[Laughter.] I did not mean in the Admiralty. I should be very glad if we had a spokesman for the ordinary man in the street among that collection of "brass hats." If the Home Secretary were a member of this Defence Committee, he would ask, "Why do you want £400 million for the Navy when we cannot get £20 million for Civil Defence?" The Admiralty would fall back again on Trafalgar.
Next, it would be the turn of the Secretary of State for War. He wants to get the biggest possible sum of money annually for the Army. That is his job. He would exclaim, "Civil Defence! Not at all, I want more tanks." He might then add, "I have a great scheme for

improving the communications at the front in the event of an atomic war."
That is the sort of thing the Secretary of State for War says. He has already told us that in the next war it will be dangerous to have lorries on the road because they will be bombed so that supplies must be taken to the front line—if there is one—by helicopters. If this Amendment passes, the Home Secretary will then be in a position to reply to the Secretary of State for War, "But what about the communications on the home front? They need to be protected, too. There will be lorries going up and down Great Britain. What about helicopters on the home front?"
We are up against this factor when considering the Defence Committee. There is this formidable traditional, vested interest, strongly entrenched, that wants money for its own particular purposes. The Home Secretary is quite content that he should be outside the door and called in for consultation, while the Secretary of State for Scotland is quite content to be consulted from a telephone kiosk somewhere in Edinburgh.
In the last three or four years we have been spending about £15,000 million on the Services and the allocation to the defence of the civil population has been almost negligible. Only 1 per cent. of the money we voted for the rearmament programme has gone for the defence of the people who are in the greatest danger. So I say that not only do we need a suppliant at this Defence Committee, but we require somebody who will be prepared to go to its meetings and insist on money being spent to defend the ordinary people in the event of the plans of the strategists culminating in a third world war.
4.45 p.m.
Field Marshal Lord Montgomery put his finger on the point when he said, in drawing attention to the need for a more realistic approach to Civil Defence:
If we visualised an atomic war, the importance of civil defence is apparent …
When it is apparent to Lord Montgomery why is it not apparent to the Government? He went on to say:
… yet the subject is grossly neglected today. There is no sound civil defence organisation in the national territory of any N.A.T.O. nation as far as I know.


That is, indeed, an indictment of our defence arrangements, and if Field Marshal Lord Montgomery has said that, I do not understand why there should be any objection by the Government to supervising the military chiefs instead of being their obedient servants. I know it has been said—and probably rightly said—that in an atomic war a Field Marshal Montgomery will be as obsolete as Guy Fawkes.
The argument that the Home Secretary produces in answer to this Amendment is that such a step is not constitutional and not traditional. We have only achieved progress in this country by disturbing constitutional issues. I am surprised at the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, with a name like he has, being so respectful to traditions and the constitution. I knew a famous and celebrated Welshman, who, if he were here tonight, would be talking very much as we are in urging priorities for the civil population and to hell with the vested interests of the military people who are at the top at the present time.

Mr. Bellenger: I realised when I put this Amendment on the Order Paper that there would be difficulty in legislating for the purpose we are trying to achieve, but in view of the sympathetic speeches that have been made, not least by the Home Secretary himself, I hope it will be possible to accomplish by persuasion within the Government what evidently we are not able to achieve by legislation. In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. H. Hynd: I beg to move, in page 1, line 9, to leave out "serving their term of part-time service," and to insert "liable to service."
This is an Amendment of some importance which, I hope, will be helpful to the Government and I believe they may be disposed to accept it or something like it. I could, of course, start by being somewhat pedantic about the wording, but I see my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Follick) in his place and I think he could argue that far better than I could. There seems at first glance to be some doubt whether the purpose of the Bill is to provide this training for those actually serving a term of part-time service or those who are liable to serve a period of part-time service.
But the purpose of the Amendment is not to be so pedantic about those words. There is something more important in it, and I suggest that the existing words are a complete misnomer. Incidentally, Sir Rhys, it might be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss with this Amendment the last Amendment on the Order Paper, to line 2 of the Title, namely, leave out "serving terms of part-time service," and insert "liable for service." They cover exactly the same point.
As the Bill stands, it is proposing to provide training for persons serving their term of part-time service. Why part-time service? As a matter of fact, in Clause 1 (2) we extend the duty of providing training in Civil Defence to members of all the Armed Forces of the Crown. Therefore, as it is to be extended to full-time members of the Armed Forces, I fail to see why we talk in the Title and in Clause 1 only of those serving their part-time service. Therefore, I suggest that the Bill ought to be described as applying to any members of the Armed Forces. That is one of the main reasons why I am interested in this Amendment——

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: On a point of order, Sir Rhys. May I ask you whether your silence means consent, and that we are discussing the two Amendments together?

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): Yes, the Amendment to the Title is consequential upon this one.

Mr. Hynd: The Minister said that this is a small Bill and that we should not try to make it into a big one. I suggest, however, that in view of the difficulty of getting amending legislation, we ought to make it a complete measure which will serve the purpose for which it is intended. If we cannot do the job properly, we might as well do it as well as we can and if, by a small alteration in the wording, we achieve the purpose which the Minister has in mind, this is the time to do it.
The other reason I think this Amendment ought to be accepted is the one I gave during the Second Reading debate. It is that clearly we are still in an experimental period as regards Civil


Defence, and it may well be that, while the conception of the present Bill is connected with mobile columns, they will not be the last answer on Civil Defence, and there may be other things involved. It may be that other members of the Armed Forces will be called on to play a part.
More than that, it will be remembered that I suggested it might be felt desirable some time, if not now, to enable members of the Armed Forces who have completed their full-time training and are liable for part-time training, to fulfil those part-time obligations by doing Civil Defence work, not necessarily in the mobile columns but perhaps in the Civil Defence Corps in their localities. This Amendment, if accepted, would enable the Government to require that at a later date, even if they do not want to do it at the present time. In other words, we want elasticity in the Civil Defence arrangements as applied to members of the Armed Forces, and this is the opportunity for the Government to get it. For those reasons, among others, I believe that the Minister should welcome this Amendment.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: I am inclined to support this Amendment because, although this Bill is designed primarily to give the Government power to train part-time R.A.F. National Service men for Civil Defence, there is much wider power in subsection (5) of Clause 1. It seems rather a contradiction to retain that subsection or even to accept, if we do, the new Clause in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) and to leave this line reading as it does. No damage could be done by accepting this Amendment, and it might save amending legislation or an Order in Council at a later date, and therefore I feel, though not very strongly, that this Amendment ought to be accepted.

Mr. William Keenan: I am not sure whether I should support the Amendment or not. I cannot make up my mind because, whether the Amendment is accepted or not, it will not alter fundamentally the provisions of this Clause. However, what worries me is the fact that the Bill

enables the Government to use all Service personnel for purposes of Civil Defence. I might not object even to that so long as it applied to all, but, here again, we are selecting those who shall be used for Civil Defence because of the failure to get the civil population to come forward in sufficient numbers.
We cannot even get military service without compulsory measures and the logic of the position is to do the same as regards Civil Defence, so long as that can be proved to be necessary. In this Clause and in the Amendment we are roping in for Civil Defence those who are liable for National Service and the intention is to use certain men who have not hitherto been called up for the R.A.F. However, the Bill goes beyond that, because it can take over for Civil Defence purposes every member of the Armed Forces if necessary, and I am disturbed that we should put an extra burden on to the National Service youth of the country when we should be considering reducing the period of 24 months——

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is widening too far the scope of the debate.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Keenan: I have no intention of discussing the duration of the service. I am pointing out that during the time in which they have to serve 21 days in each year a section of the community are being told not only that they must be trained as soldiers, whether they like it or not, but must be trained in Civil Defence. I claim that too many are escaping Service liability and I do not think that we should be putting an additional obligation on existing National Service men.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member's present remarks would be more appropriate on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" than on the Amendment.

Mr. Keenan: That may very well be but, with respect, I should probably get a similar Ruling from the Chair then as you, Sir Rhys, are giving me now.
I am dealing with the point that these men are having thrust upon them an additional obligation, that only about 100,000 are concerned and that we are calling upon them to serve in this additional way when we have a population of about 24 million adults to draw upon.

The Deputy-Chairman: The Amendment is limited in scope to those who already have been called up.

Mr. Keenan: With respect, the Clause applies not only to members of the R.A.F.——

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is now discussing the Clause. He might make those remarks on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Keenan: Is not the position that the Amendment merely provides a change of words for the better interpretation of the Clause? How can I discuss the Amendment if I do not discuss what is amended?

The Deputy-Chairman: If the hon. Member discusses the Amendment he will be perfectly in order.

Mr. Keenan: With respect, I assert that I am in order. The Amendment is to leave out "serving their term of part-time service," and to insert "liable to service." That is what I am discussing, and the fact that these men are being called upon to do additional duty under the provisions of the Bill. Although it has been stated over and over again on Second Reading and today that this additional duty is confined very narrowly to R.A.F. personnel, the fact is that the Bill, which the Amendment seeks to alter, applies fully to all the Armed Forces of the Crown. Therefore, with respect, I do not see how I can be ruled out of Order.
I protest against the fact that only a limited number of men may be called upon to do this duty. I am not against Civil Defence. I should like to see more done in that respect. I know the value of it and I do not take the view of some authorities in the country that it is invalid. If it saves half-a-dozen out of a thousand lives or assists people when trouble comes it is well worth while to do all that we can for that service. I have no objection to using the Armed Forces for the purpose. I want the whole thing integrated, but I object, and will continue to object, to unfair discrimination and the calling upon one section of our youth to do this duty while others escape.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth): It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I deal with the Amendment now. I do not believe that there is a real difference of opinion in the Committee about what we want to do in this connection, but I do not think that the Amendment has the effect which the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) thinks that it would have. The effect of the Amendment would be to extend the scope of the Civil Defence training arrangements which may be made by the designated Minister so to as to apply to all men having a service liability under the National Service Act, including those undergoing a period of whole-time National Service.
The Government fully realise that in future the Armed Forces will have to assume a much wider and more specific rôle in Civil Defence. We argued that matter, very rightly, on Second Reading. That point, in so far as it arises, is raised by the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) and others to leave out subsection (5) of the Clause, and also on the proposed new Clause in the name of the right hon. Gentleman. The Bill already gives power to train all those serving in the Armed Forces, and no question on that arises on the Amendment. The specific power of the Amendment would not give power to train those men at all.
The Amendment would extend the power of the designated Minister to provide for the training of those men. I am sure that the Committee will see that it would not be very appropriate if the Home Secretary were made the Minister responsible for giving training to men who are currently training with their units, it may be overseas. It might be that the nature of the training given would be a matter in which the designated Minister would have an interest, but he must not be the Minister personally responsible for giving the training. That Minister must be the head of the Service in question.

Mr. H. Hynd: As the proposal at the moment is to call up men for mobile columns and use them in disciplined units under R.A.F. officers, what is the difference in principle between that and what the hon. Gentleman has been saying?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: That is exactly the point. Clause 1 (1) gives the designated Minister power to give the training in respect of those men who are specially called up for Civil Defence service. The Amendment would extend that responsibility to the case of all men who are in the Services, wherever they may be.

Mr. Ede: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but it would save time if we could clear this matter up now. Is not this the real effect? As drafted at present, Clause 1 (1) merely allows the training to be given to men during the fortnight for which they are called up, and we understood from what was said by the Home Secretary the other day that they would be called up in each of two successive years for a fortnight, that is, for the part-time service to which the phrase in the Clause alludes.
The object of the Amendment is to enable some of these men to be given two years' full-time training if necessary. That may not be the only effect, but that will be one of the effects of the Amendment. It would enable an extended period of full-time training to be given to such of the men as were selected for it.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The purpose of Clause 1 (1) is to deal with those men who have a part-time liability under the National Service Act and, as drafted, it affects those men only. The Bill is necessary and this is the whole raison d'étre because it would not be possible without the Bill to call up men for the purpose of doing Civil Defence and nothing else. There is already power to give Civil Defence training to men who are serving in the Forces. That power is reaffirmed in this Bill, but there is already that power in existence. Therefore we are now dealing only with this rather narrow class of individuals.
The Amendment would spread the particular scheme for which the Bill is designed to legislate and apply it generally to all members of the Armed Forces. I do not think anyone, in any part of the Committee, really wants to do that. I think we are all agreed that where men are serving their normal two-year period any arrangements for training them should be made through the

units in which they are serving. It seems to me that it would be difficult to argue that that is not the proper way to deal with it.
Here we are dealing only with a special and narrow class, and we put the responsibility for providing the training—which will be the whole training these men received when called up under this Bill—on the Home Secretary.

Mr. James Harrison: Could we assume that, for this particular corps, this would be an additional duty as part-time serving National Servicemen? Most probably in the normal course these men would not be called up to the R.A.F., but under the provisions of this Clause they would be called up specifically for Civil Defence training?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The hon. Member said "this Clause," I think he means the subsection. The Clause, of course, deals with both classes of men. There are two classes of people with whom we are concerned generally in this Bill. One is the man who has the part-time liability which remains after he has done his full-time service, and the other is the man who is serving his normal period of two years.
I quite appreciate that the right hon. Member for South Shields has made a point previously with regard to the training of men doing their full-time service. What I am saying is that that point does not arise under subsection (1) of the Bill. Subsection (1) is limited in its effect to men doing part-time service. It is necessary because we could not call them up, without express provision, for the sole purpose of doing Civil Defence training.
The Clause, as drafted, provides that the Home Secretary—or the Minister of Health, if the men are called up for ambulance service—shall be the Minister responsible for training them during that period of part-time service only.

Mr. M. Turner-Samuels: Do I understand the Joint Under-Secretary to say that it is unnecessary to put in those words "liable to service" because that is already provided for, but that it is necessary to put in:
serving their term of part-time service
because that is not provided for?

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I am bound to say that I share the doubts of my hon. Friend as to what actually would be effected by the words proposed in this Amendment. May I say at once that I am in full sympathy with its object? Certainly I think men who are serving their full-time two years' service would be most usefully employed—better employed than now—by being properly equipped to deal with this type of catastrophe, if ever called upon to do so. If that is the purpose of the Amendment, as I understand it to be, I sympathise with it fully. What I do not follow is how it is proposed to achieve that object solely by the words in the Amendment.
The Clause as it stands is simple enough to understand. It gives power to call upon men, during the time when they remain liable for part-time service, to undergo this training. No one, on either side of the Committee, objects to that. What it is sought to do is something more, but the something more which would be effected by this Amendment seems to me to go far beyond not merely the intention of my right hon. and hon. Friends, but also the scope of the Bill altogether.
It seems to me that if this Amendment were carried everyone who was liable under the National Service Acts could be called upon by the designated Minister for this purpose and for training, but there is nothing in the Bill to that effect.

The Deputy-Chairman: I agree that that may be a view of the Amendment, but it certainly would not be in order under the terms of this Bill to discuss people who may be liable to be called up under the military service Acts. That would be out of order.

Mr. Silverman: I am much obliged to you, Sir Rhys. That is precisely the point I am endeavouring to make. That is why I think it most important to clear up what the words actually do mean. That is precisely why I said it seemed to me that if the words mean what on the surface they appear to mean—what my hon. Friend thought they meant and what I think they mean—they would indeed be out of order because they would be outside the scope of the Bill. That is, because the obligation which these men will be called upon to accept under this

Bill, as it is proposed to amend it, if it could be done, would be an additional obligation.
There is nothing in this Bill, or in any other Measure, to say that any service the men perform will be in substitution for their liability for military service under the National Service Acts. Therefore, if my hon. Friends had their way what would be achieved would be not what they want: the result of the Amendment—if it were held to be in order and if it were incorporated in the Bill—would be to double the national service of people called up under this Bill.
Instead of two years under the National Service Acts they could—I do not say they would—be called upon to do two years' service under this Measure and still do their military service. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am perfectly certain that is not the intention of my hon. Friends. I may be quite wrong about it and I do not want to be dogmatic, or to appear to lay down the law, but, reading the words as best I can, they seem to me to be capable of bearing that interpretation. If they are capable of bearing that interpretation and that is not what is desired, the Committee would be very ill-advised to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Ede: This Amendment was put down to raise the whole question as to whether part-time training can be regarded as a sufficient training for Civil Defence if it is limited to two periods of 14 days given at an interval of approximately 12 months. That is the liability that is imposed by subsection (1) on men who have completed their whole-time service. The subsection itself makes no provision at all for training them during their whole-time service. I think that so far we are in agreement, and I hope that that agreement accords with the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman).
We suggest that that cannot be regarded as looking on this matter with the seriousness suggested by the tone of the debates on Second Reading and today. I think that it is generally accepted that this matter ought to be regarded seriously. The object of the Amendment was to enable a man liable to full-time service to perform that service, not in addition to his military service, but in substitution for it.
When it is suggested that that can be done under subsection (5), I should have thought that again doubts might arise about the reading of the Bill, because
other members of the armed forces of the Crown"—
in the long Title obviously distinguishes them from the people who are performing terms of part-time service. The people performing terms of part-time service are one group and the members of the Armed Forces of the Crown are all the others.
Is it held that because that might include those others—the men who are performing whole-time service under the National Service Acts—therefore, for some reason or other, it makes this Amendment one which the Government cannot accept? After all, the hon. Gentleman said that the raison d'étre for this Bill was the need for training these part-time airmen. We wish to discuss this Bill, not on the basis of it being drafted merely to deal with the difficulties of the Under-Secretary of State for Air, but to deal with the problem of Civil Defence; and the liability of men in any Service under any conditions to undergo training in Civil Defence and to take part in it.
I think that it may be seriously contended that men who have spent only two fortnights in training at an interval of 12 months cannot be very efficient people, when regard is paid to the work which they may have to undertake in the event of hostilities. I was a volunteer—in the last century as well as in this—in an infantry regiment. It is true that we had a fortnight's training, but in between we had to put in a certain number of drills and the fortnight's training was really to put into practice, under as near Service conditions as one could get outside actual hostilities, what we had been learning during the intervening period.
I remember that there was one exercise called, "Prepare to receive cavalry," which we did on the concrete floor of a drill hall—one can only express sympathy with any horses which might have had to charge us in such circumstances. But when one went to Brighton, or Aldershot, one could then at any rate go through that movement with a greater sense of reality. On one occasion we actually saw a few cavalry soldiers. The trouble was

that while we were prepared to receive them they had no interest in being entertained.
The question is whether one can regard two fortnights as a sufficient period of training to justify the position. If it is felt that the words of the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend would not raise that issue and that it might land us in the difficulty suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne, I think that the best thing my hon. Friend can do is to withdraw this Amendment and attempt to find, on Report, words which we could ask the House to consider on the narrow issue to which I have just referred.
I am quite sure that it is a serious issue which ought to be discussed, if not by the Committee then by the House, so that we may ascertain the views of the Government. I am quite certain that there are some people called up for military service who would probably be better employed, not merely during their training but during any hostilities in the future, in Civil Defence rather than in one of the Armed Forces.

Mr. Wigg: I understood the position until we heard the reply of the Joint Under-Secretary of State when he explained the purpose of the Bill in terms of the part-time training of these reservists. As I understand it, these men are called up for 14 days in any one year, and while they are called up their discipline is maintained, not under this Bill, but under the Royal Air Force Act—I asked this question a little unnecessarily during the Second Reading debate, and that is so——

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: With this difference, that the Bill would permit the whole 60 days that is legally possible. The hon. Member said 14 days, but it is 60 days, subject to limitations.

Mr. Wigg: I did not want to anticipate a later Amendment in my name.
I wish now to concentrate on this point, and I hope I shall be in order if I make a brief reference to the debate in another place. There the noble Lord, who was Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, said:
This is a legal departure, but I do not think it is a practical departure."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 8th July, 1954; Vol. 188, c. 548.]


That is to say, under the National Service Act, it would have been lawful to have called up any soldier or airman or naval reservist and to have given them the kind of training envisaged under this Bill. The difference now would be that whereas the responsibility for the training—for the drawing up of the syllabus and its supervision and the responsibility for rations and accommodation—would be exclusively with the Service in which the man was called up, when this Bill becomes law, the responsibility for discipline and for the attachment, and the circumstances surrounding it, will rest with the Secretary of State for Air.
The responsibility for the training, for the preparation of the syllabus and for the provision of the actual buildings and equipment, will rest with the designated Minister. I understood during the Second Reading debate and from the proceedings in another place that this Bill was drafted in order to clear up a legal doubt, although it does not affect the practical considerations. If the hon. Gentleman would be kind enough to say that I am wrong I shall be obliged, and it may be that it will help other hon. Members.

5.30 p.m

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The hon. Gentleman is partly right and partly wrong. The Bill has an effect of a practical and a novel kind, in that it enables men to be called back for part-time service for the purpose of Civil Defence. Under the National Service Act such men could be called back only for military service, using that term in the widest sense.
Subsection (1) enables such men to be called back for the purpose of Civil Defence. Under the law as it stands a man who is serving under the National Service Act can be given training in Civil Defence. That is why this is put in a declaratory form in the Bill. I do not want to anticipate a later Amendment. That is the difference between the two parts of the Bill.
I would say to the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) that I do not think that it will be necessary to wait until Report. I think that it will be possible, on his Amendment, to omit subsection (5), and, on the new Clause which stands in his name, to discuss the question of the training of men during

their whole-time service. The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) is right about part-time service but he is not right about whole-time service.

Mr. Wigg: If I am wrong, then the hon. Gentleman's reply is catastrophic. He is saying that an order to do something which is considered Civil Defence, such as to fill up a fire bucket or to learn first aid, would not be lawful.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: It depends who gives the order.

Mr. Wigg: My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), with his common sense and instinct about military affairs, said earlier that he knows what happens if a man disobeys an order given by a sergeant major when he draws up a roster.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State is saying that we require a Bill if one calls upon a National Service man to do Civil Defence. I should have thought that when he was called up an order could be given to him to do any of the things which a Regular soldier can be called upon to do. Provided that the command was a lawful one—and I suggest that a command to do Civil Defence would be—and that it was given by a superior officer in the execution of his duty, a breach of it would be an offence under the Army Act.
If there is any doubt perhaps the Home Secretary ought to consider the matter with his Service colleagues. It ought to be made clear in the Measures covering discipline in the Services. We do not want a situation in which a member of the Armed Forces, if given a command to undertake training for what can be regarded as Civil Defence, is able to say that it is a matter on which he can please himself.
Is there any legal definition of the words "Civil Defence"? Are we getting into the difficulty because nobody really knows what the words mean? Do they mean Civil Defence if the work is done by somebody in civilian clothes and something else if it is done by somebody in uniform? I hope that we shall not tamper with discipline in this way.

Mr. H. Hynd: I was hoping that there would be another reply from the Government Front Bench, because it is obvious from the discussion that there is some


confusion on both sides of the Committee. The interpretations put upon my Amendment have amazed me. I hope that the advice given to my by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) that we should redraft an Amendment for Report stage will not be necessary, because I believe that there has been sufficient discussion to persuade the Government that it is up to them to find some better form of words than that now in the Bill.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) asked, what is Civil Defence? Men are called up for National Service now and they are taught fire fighting in certain arms of the Service. Other men are called up for National Service and taught to use a pick and shovel and to do all the other things that a rescue party normally does. In certain arms of the Service men are taught first aid, and apparently that is all legal; but I gather now, from the Government Front Bench, that if these activities are called Civil Defence they would not be legal as part of National Service.
The Committee does not know where it is after the discussion which has taken place. I am sorry if I have been the cause of the confusion, but I claim that the moving of the Amendment has brought to light certain difficulties which have shown that there is confusion in the subsection and that the Government ought to provide a better form of words on Report.
I direct attention to another aspect. As the subsection is drafted, it gives the Government power to apply Civil Defence training only to men who have done their full-time service and are still liable for some part-time service. Is not it conceivable that the Government may at some time want to give Civil Defence training to some men who have not done National Service but are still liable for it? I am thinking of people who have been exempted or, to use the official word, "deferred," for one reason or another. I am thinking of farmers' sons, and so on. Why should not some of them do a little bit of Civil Defence training? The Amendment would enable the Government to order that sort of thing, and I believe that it would be useful.
However, if we are to have no further reply from the Government Front Bench, then in view of the discussion which we have had, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Wigg: I beg to move, in page 1, line 13, at the end, to insert:
Provided that all persons called up for reserve training for civil defence shall be called up for the same period as that for which National Servicemen are liable under the National Service Act, 1948.
A man liable under the National Service Act completes his two years' training in the arm of the Service to which he has been called up, and at the end of that time he is liable for a period of 60 days of part-time service during three and a half years. The facts are established that men are called up for the Army and Navy and that they do their two years and are then required to complete 60 days.
All hon. Gentlemen know that constituents come along and complain about difficulties in connection with a man's education or his business. If the man happens to be a soldier the Secretary of State for War always gives the same answer, and the exigencies of the Service prevail. The man's personal needs do not matter.
When we consider the Royal Air Force the facts are established that in 1953, out of 100,000 men, only 8,000 were called up for the 60 days. The only difference this year is that on 1st July, 1954, from the 145,000 R.A.F. men with a liability for 60 days only 8,000 had done any training. Next year, under the Bill, we shall start with 15,000 men getting training, but the men who are called up will not do 60 days; they will not even do 21 days; they will be required to do only 14 days. Therefore, we are getting selective drafting by the back door.
This is utterly wrong. If an Act of Parliament requires a young man to do two years' service and 60 days part-time service, then Parliament intended that he should carry out the obligation. I go further. The National Service Act was put on the Statute Book by a Labour Administration. I do not believe that it would have been possible in the 1945 Parliament if the Ministers responsible had said that the law would work in such a way that only those in the Army and


Navy would complete the service and that those in the Royal Air Force would "get away with it."
This is not only a business of missing a certain number of days. There is a cash bonus to the Royal Air Force reservist. This is a burdensome obligation and it does not get less as time goes on. One is against the attitude of the Prime Minister who, when in opposition in September, 1950, said—I agreed with him then and I agree now with what he said—that the National Service Act was beginning to work in a rather cumbersome and expensive way. The right hon. Gentleman did not rule out the possibility of a revision. Since then, nothing has happened; the situation has become worse and more unfair.
Up to the passing of this Bill, we shall at least have had the situation that if a man was called up for the Royal Air Force it was 12 to one that he would ever do any training after the completion of his two years' service. Now inside the Air Force we shall have divisions consisting of those who are called up and do their two years' service and then the 14 days and those who do their two years' service and nothing else.
It will be argued that the men who are called up for this purpose are no worse off than the odd 8,000 called up for their part-time training, but I do not think they will think so. They will think that they are being picked upon. It will mean that we shall start off with a bad spirit among the men who are called up for part-time training, because they will read the newspapers and HANSARD and they will know that they have been picked upon by Parliament to undertake an awkward obligation which the majority of the Royal Air Force reservists will not be required to undertake. When the scheme is operating fully, in about two years' time, there will still be about 100,000 Royal Air Force reservists who will not be called up.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward): I must correct that figure. Perhaps I can do so later on.

Mr. Wigg: I think I know the point which the hon. Gentleman has in mind. I am arguing on the basis of the figures that I have got. There has been some argument on the basis of other figures. The hon. Gentleman has the advantage of knowing that the call-up is going to

taper off, and that in two years' time it is likely that the figure of 142,000 given in the latest return by the Ministry of Defence, will fall; and, therefore, if 30,000 are called up under this scheme and 8,000 to 10,000 are called up under the other scheme, the number of those escaping will be not 100,000 but about 80,000.

Mr. Ward: No, Sir. I gave the figures in the debate on the Air Estimates last year. They are substantially the same, and I do not wish to alter them at all.
Very briefly, this is the position. In the financial year 1954–1955, the average strength of Class H reservists is 135,000, and we expect to give training to about 17,000 of them. In the financial year 1955–1956, the average strength comes down a little to 125,000, and we expect to give training to about 50,000. In 1956–1957, when the average strength comes down to about 115,000, we expect to give training to about 70,000.

Mr. Wigg: I readily accept the hon. Gentleman's figures, but, even at best, there will still be 50,000 young men in the Royal Air Force who will "get away with it."
Anybody who studies the problem knows very well that the situation is getting worse, and is liable to become worse still. So far, it has made no great impact on the public mind, but it will do so, because the knowledge will spread in a simple manner. When employers get to know about this, and three young men, one from the Army, one from the Royal Air Force and one from the Navy, come along for a job, the Royal Air Force man will get it because it will be two to one that he will not be called up for part-time training.
It is not only a question of dodging part-time training. We may have three young men of equal ability studying to be accountants or engineers and devoting their spare time to that end. The situation will be that the young man going into the Army has to undertake to give up a fortnight every year for training but the Royal Air Force man who has done his two years' service can go sailing on.
5.45 p.m.
I have emphasised the problem. What are we going to do to solve it? I would say to the Government that this is not a


matter for one Administration on its own; it is a matter for right hon. and hon. Gentlemen sitting on both sides of the Committee. It is a national, all-party problem. All of us, irrespective of party, have an interest in finding a solution to the problem of the best use of our young men's time. The country has reluctantly but cheerfully accepted the principle of National Service, but it demands that the National Service scheme shall be fairly administered over the years. I do not want to make any party capital out of the matter. If things go wrong, we shall all be in it; we all have an interest in solving the problem.
I regard it as a privilege to have served on the Army and Air Force Bill Committee. That Committee was born of party strife, but from its first meeting there was no party approach at all. I believe that the Committee has done a good job. It points the way to us. There ought to be an inquiry into the workings of the National Service scheme. I do not say that National Service can or ought to be cut; what I am saying is that, beyond any shadow of doubt—no hon. Gentleman can deny it—the National Service Act is not working as Parliament intended, and the Bill is evidence of that fact. The National Service Act is bearing unfairly on young men who serve in the Navy and the Army.
I frankly admit that the Government would be very embarrassed if they accepted my Amendment, but I beg the Home Secretary to go back to his colleagues and tell them what the feeling in this Committee is. The Committee has noted the differences, but we are content to leave the matter to the Government. Perhaps we can persuade the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to have a word with the Prime Minister and get the Prime Minister to read his speeches of September, 1950. After all, that is not asking too much in view of the continuing obligation which we ask the youth of the country to bear.

Mr. Ian Harvey: I hope to follow the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) in the spirit in which he moved his Amendment. I sympathise very much with the sentiments which have impelled him to move the Amendment and have guided his speech. However, I want to put to him a point of view as a matter not so

much of principle but of practical administration in the situation which faces us today. Under the Bill fewer people will be "getting away with it" than are doing so now. Although I admit that that is not the solution to the main problem, it seems to be a slightly better situation than that which exists now.
Another considerable problem arises from the hon. Member's proposition, and I am sure that it has not escaped him. We ought to underline it. The men who are doing their period of part-time service are, for the most part, doing it with existing units of the Army and the Royal Air Force. I agree that the problem behind what we are discussing is that the Bill deals with a very small matter in relation to a very big principle.
In the Civil Defence set-up at the moment—I am not defending it entirely, because I think it will have to be adjusted—there are no organisations of that sort, or, at any rate, not sufficient organisations of that sort to take men during weekends. When this matter was raised before, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary did not back out of this difficulty, but pointed out that what he would have to do with these men would be to put them through solidly for three weeks, and that, in fact, is a week longer than anybody else has to do under the arrangements which exist with the other Services. Therefore, as a matter of interest, the people about whom we are now talking would, in fact, have the heaviest burden to bear.

Mr. Wigg: Surely, the 60 days could be spread over the 3½ years, and could be worked out in such a way as to be no more onerous a burden on those men than it is on the soldiers?

Mr. Harvey: It cannot be worked out in such a way, because the arrangements for taking men for two days or a long week-end do not at the moment exist, and that is the whole point underlying this problem. That is what would have to happen.

Mr. Strachey: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me? If this is a question of fact, we ought to get it right. I should have thought that there were sufficient ordinary civilian organisations of Civil Defence in the localities throughout the country. It is a question of the equivalent of part-time drills spaced between the 14 days


and the 30 days, as I understand the position. Why should he not do them in a Civilian Defence organisation?

Mr. Harvey: I accept that point entirely, but I think that, when we call men up to create the mobile column type of organisation which we have in mind, it is extremely difficult to get this done by means of volunteer resources, which is the point to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. I should have thought that the type of training required for mobile columns is a different type of training to that immediately available within the local Civil Defence units. I would hesitate to say that these local Civilian Defence units would be prepared to undertake it.

Mr. Wigg: There is no earthly reason why local preparatory training should not be given, as it is in the Territorial Army, so that men can do their 15 days and become more efficient. I think this could be one of the ways of very rapidly increasing the efficiency of local training if something like that were done on a part-time basis.

Mr. Harvey: I beg leave to doubt that. I think it is an administrative problem that should be looked into in the light of the proposal contained in this Amendment.

Mr. William Ross: The hon. Gentleman will remember that, during the Second Reading debate, we were told that the purpose of this organisation was to obtain co-operation with local Civil Defence organisations. Surely, in that way the man concerned could work off the odd days?

Mr. Harvey: That point is rather wide of this Amendment. The proposal is open to serious military objection.
The Bill does not preclude the full call-up period, and I am among those who believe that this matter must be looked at in a broader context, so that more effective use is made of manpower, as has been clearly outlined in this debate. It is a far greater and broader issue, but I should be very much out of order if I tried to pursue it any further now. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he is trying to approach the matter in order to make a genuine point, but

I hardily think that my right hon. Friend could accept it as part of this Bill, and I therefore trust that he will not do so.

Mr. Ede: The compliment paid by the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Ian Harvey) to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) in the concluding sentence of his speech is one that I heartily endorse, and I am glad to see that he at last accepts that my hon. Friend approaches the matter in a non-party spirit.
The hon. Member for Harrow, East has himself done the Committee a great service by the analysis which he has made of the present position of Civil Defence units in the localities, because the effective portion of my hon. Friend's Amendment, which is to secure that the airmen called up shall in time get as much as the soldier called up, depends upon the ability of local Civil Defence units to give the men the intermediate drills between the two fortnights.
I hope we shall get from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman an assurance that steps will be taken to energise local Civil Defence so that this will be possible, because the extent to which it is possible at the moment varies very much from one part of the country to another. There are places where a substantial number of people have been recruited and where fairly active training is going on. In other places, recruiting has been comparatively poor, and where the actual training given is at the very minimum.
I saw an instance in my own constituency during last week-end, when I was able to compliment those concerned on the fact that the county borough shows a number of recruits per thousand of the population which is very high. I think they are third in the list, and at one time they led. In an area like that, the problem presented by the Amendment ought not to be very difficult to work out on the lines suggested by the hon. Member for Harrow, East, and whether my hon. Friend's suggestion can ultimately be carried out really does depend upon the Civil Defence units in these areas being brought up to the same state of readiness.
I do not see that there is any objection to his proposal on the grounds that these men are to be trained for mobile columns, and this is the one point on which I differ from the hon. Member


for Harrow, East. After all, when a mobile column gets to the point of disaster in the event of hostilities, they will not still be in column. They may not even be in line, and I do not imagine that much training will be given to them in the direction of "On the left (or on the right), form company." Of course, they march in threes now instead of fours, so that there will be no trouble if the even numbers do not mark time for two paces. When they get there, they will be employed on very many of the tasks that are being considered and for which they are trained when the local Civil Defence units go in for their weekly. fortnightly or monthly training.
Therefore, I think that the main problem about doing what I think everyone in the Committee wants to do, whatever may be their views regarding conscription as a matter of principle, which is to ensure that the men called up under the National Service Acts shall be subject to the same liabilities as regards time from the beginning.
I hope we shall have a reply from the Government indicating that, while they admit the difficulties put forward by the hon. Member for Harrow, East, they accept the Amendment in principle. If they are in the position to implement it, they will be able, without these words going into the Clause and compelling them to do something which they cannot do at the moment, to do so within a reasonably short time.

6.0 p.m.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: I would not have risen had it not been for one sentence in the speech of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). I wish to re-emphasise a point I made in my speech on the Second Reading. I gather that the hon. Member for Dudley suggested that a large number of R.A.F. men would not do any part-time service at all and that others would be in Civil Defence only after a fortnight's training. My point concerns the balance of the 21 days' call-up.
The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has said that on the scene of action the men would no longer be in column; under the present set-up they will not have a hope of getting there at all. Men just cannot get experience

in these matters without adequate training. It takes an immense amount of training. On the balance of their 21 days, when these men go back to their homes in their own areas and under their own officers, they should be in hired vehicles during the week-ends learning map reading and driving around the country in their own areas. Let us not talk about further training in firefighting. Although that is very valuable, it will be of no earthly use unless the men learn to drive to the scene of action. That is a vital element of their tasks. Another is that, if we are to operate mobile columns from a central office in atomic warfare in the dark and in a hurry, the men will have to work on wireless. Each one of them will have to be taught how to use it.

Mr. J. Harrison: I hope that the idea behind the Amendment is not to settle the vexed question of the disproportion of service between one Service and another by using the lever of Civil Defence. It would be inexcusable for us to increase the liability of a National Service man in Civil Defence purposely to settle the question of the disproportion of service which exists. Everyone knows that this question of R.A.F. part-time service being out of proportion with that of other Services is one of the most knotty questions that the defence organisation has to tackle.
We do not want to be parties to increasing the liability of service of any National Service man at this juncture in trying to solve that problem. The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Ian Harvey) said he wanted to stop people "getting away with it," but we want more people to "get away with it." The circumstances indicate that more people should "get away with it." If the Amendment is to be used to increase the liability of the National Service man, I oppose that suggestion.

Mr. Strachey: Nothing in the Amendment, as I understand it, increases the statutory liability of the National Service man.

Mr. J. Harrison: I did not mean the statutory liability particularly. I meant the actual liability.

Mr. Strachey: This is a question of how much time the new category of


persons called up for part-time service for Civil Defence would be called up for. If my hon. Friend will think over this matter very carefully he will realise—and I call the attention of the Home Secretary to this point—that we should take seriously the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) about the importance of uniform liability which is fair for all.
Like other Civil Defence Acts, this Measure will be a heavy burden, but there will be a most dreadful disintegration of those Acts if we let off people from bits of it indiscriminately, without any legal provision. We shall get all sorts of categories of people, some having to be called up for the full period of two years and then for 60 days in the 3½ years following, others called up for shorter periods of part-time service, and some not called up at all for part-time service. That really will not do. My hon. and gallant Friend is right in drawing attention once more to this problem. The Home Secretary brought the problem to the fore when he moved the Second Reading of the Bill and said, clearly and without any explanation or defence of it, that he was going to call up these Royal Air Force young men for only 14 days in one year instead of 21 days.
That may be convenient at the present time, but it drives a coach-and-four through the National Service Acts by making yet, another category of discrimination in them. I warn the Government that they are going to disintegrate those Acts, and there will be a very heavy burden on the population if they do that. The way in which we should reduce the burden is not by letting off particular people from bits and bats of their service, but by reducing the period of the call-up. I believe that that can now be done. I strongly support the plea made from these benches that that possibility should be inquired into at once. As long as the obligation is there and falls on the immense majority it ought to fall on it fairly, or it becomes unworkable.
The hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) really made a most powerful plea for this Amendment, or something like it. He showed not only that it is fair and equitable to call up these men for the same 21 days as their comrades in the Army and Navy, but that it is highly desirable to do it in order to get any

adequate degree of Civil Defence planning. His point on mobility is very sound. We should increase the capacity of the men during that balance of seven days. We are keen on this Amendment, not merely to preserve equity among the Services but in order to make a good job of Civil Defence.

Mr. Ian Harvey: I intervene because, although I do not dissent from what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) said, the problem is that the mobile column has to operate a long distance from home, and men would have to be brought in to a central place to get their training. If they could be brought in for weekend training it would be the answer, but I do not believe that that is a practical possibility. Nor do I think that there is any point in teaching them mobility for local Civil Defence use. I agree, however, that they could be trained in the other aspect of their mobile column work, namely, the rescue work which they would have to do.

Mr. Strachey: I am sure that, with sufficient ingenuity, the Government could find useful employment for them in the drills which add up to the balance of seven days. As my right hon. Friend has said, it would be easier in some localities than in others—but it could be done.
I can anticipate the sort of objections that the Home Secretary will make to accepting this Amendment, but we ask him to withdraw from the position which he seemed to take up on Second Reading; that it was perfectly all right to call them up for 14 days—a different period from everyone else who was called up. He must think again on that. He must know that discrimination under the National Service Acts is getting worse and worse. Both the House and the Committee are really keen on Civil Defence training. I hope that whoever replies can assure us that the Government will really look at this so as to make real use of the men. We do not want anyone called up who is not to be used, or just for the sake of calling him up. The Government must look at this again, with a view to making the men far more effective Civil Defence recruits in that balance of seven days in the two-year period. That is the purpose of my hon. Friend's Amendment.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: The Government at this stage, should try to explain precisely what these men will do during their call-up. If some clear explanation is given of what they are to do, I do not object to the men being called up, but, as the former Secretary of State for War said, we do not want men to be called up just for the sake of calling them up. Why should a plumber or an electrician be taken away, probably at a critical stage in the completion of a housing scheme, to do some undefined work at a camp? Surely we are entitled to have some illustration of the training to be done at the depots or centres.
We know that there is to be a depot at Epsom. We do not know what there is to be in Scotland except that there will be something somewhere. The appropriate Minister is not here and no one has attempted to explain the position, but if men are to be taken from key work in such essential industries as engineering and the shipyards what will they do when they arrive at the depots? I remember the occasion when we asked the Secretary of State for War what was to be the rôle of the Army in the next war. He told us that a conference at Camberley of all the experts had come to the conclusion that the Army's rôle was summed up in the word "dispersal." And he left it at that.
Presumably, when these reservists are called to the mobile column, depot or centre, they are not just to disperse. What are they to do? If it is to be fire fighting, surely, as they will presumably be operating in their own area it is unanswerable that they would be better employed training with their local fire brigade.

6.15 p.m.

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Leonard Ropner): There has been a very wide discussion on this matter, but I think that, so far, the hon. Member is the only Member of the Committee who has not related his remarks to the Amendment before us. I should be glad if he would devote his further remarks to the Amendment.

Mr. Hughes: I know that the discussion has been very wide. That is why I seek to bring it into narrow limits. All I ask is that the Minister should give us some picture of the work these plumbers, plasterers and engineers are to do when they arrive at the mobile column centre.

The Temporary Chairman: If the Minister attempted to answer that question, I should call him to order.

Mr. Hughes: The words used in the Amendment are:
… reserve training for Civil Defence. …
An attempt should be made to define that phrase. If we do not know of what that reserve training is to consist, how are we to decide whether to vote for or against the Amendment? I am trying to dispel the fog. The Under-Secretary of State for Air is here and is quite capable of defining exactly what the Air Force would do, but before the Committee sanctions this call up we should have an explanation and not be expected just to indulge in metaphysics. If the men are to be trained in fire fighting they would be better employed at the local fire brigade.
The hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) was the first to illumine this discussion when he suggested that one of the activities of the new mobile column would be to learn to drive in the dark—but where are they going to drive? There has been a suggestion that the mobile column will go into bombed areas to repair ruined buildings. I wonder if that is so. Is the mobile column to go into a city which has become radioactive as a result of the dropping of an atom bomb? Is it to go in and stay in, or is it to bring people out? In this discussion hon. Members are talking as if neither the atom bomb nor radioactivity existed. One of the problems now facing all Civil Defence authorities is what is to be done amongst radioactive buildings. What is to be done if an atom or H-bomb drops on a city and sends up a cloud of radioactive dust which may spread for 100 miles?

Mr. Cyril Bence: Clear out.

Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend says "clear out," but the object of the mobile column is to "clear in."
There is such an air of unreality about this. The hon. and gallant Member has been the first to attempt to tell us exactly what those men ought to do during their 14 days. I have tried to clear the air. I do not think that there can be any smokescreen now. I hope that the Minister will give us some idea of what the mobile columns are to do.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward): While I very much regret that the Government cannot accept this Amendment, for reasons which I shall try to make clear, I certainly accept the spirit in which it was moved by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). The effect of the Amendment would be that these men selected for training in Civil Defence would have to carry out the maximum amount of training which is allowed under the National Service Act.
The National Service Act, Section 4 (1), states:
During his term of part-time service a person may"—
I would draw attention to the permissive "may"—
be required to undergo training for any periods not exceeding in the aggregate—(a) sixty days during the whole of his term of part-time service; (b) twenty-one days in any year of that service
The amount of training carried out by National Service men during their 3½ years training differs according to the different needs of the Services, or indeed of the individual branches of the Services. It is not a matter on which, in practice, one can possibly maintain any rigid uniformity. In the case of the Army units, for instance, organised on a territorial basis, 15 days training is given in one spell and then further training is given on a non-continuous basis by a number of local drills. Where units are not organised on a territorial basis and it is impossible or inconvenient for men to undertake non-continuous training, their training is confined to a continuous spell of 15 days.
In the case of the Royal Air Force, National Service reservists are not directed to units organised on a territorial basis, such as the Royal Auxiliary Air Force, because we have no power to do so. Therefore, they cannot do their part-time training on the same basis as those soldiers who are required to carry out their training with territorial units. At present all R.A.F. Class H reservists do only their continuous period of 15 days' training.

Mr. Wigg: Did the hon. Gentleman say all of them?

Mr. Ward: All those Class H reservists who are called up do a continuous period

of 15 days' training. These reservists who will be given Civil Defence training under this Bill, will be Royal Air Force Class H reservists, and, therefore, plans for their continuous training must be regulated by current R.A.F. practice. But I have the assurance of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Home Secretary that if it is possible also to do some non-continuous training in local Civil Defence organisations, full advantage will certainly be taken of that. That, I think, meets the point made by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede).
The provisions of the National Service Act which I have quoted are permissive, and it is important that they should be permissive. I am quite sure, too, that it would be wrong to include in this Bill a provision making it obligatory for these men to do the maximum amount of service under the National Service Act, while leaving it permissive in the National Service Act itself for those called up in the ordinary way. In other words, we need flexibility both for those carrying out military training and for those carrying out Civil Defence training, and since this Amendment would destroy all flexibility, I am afraid we cannot accept it.
I should like to refer to the points made by the right hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) and for Dudley. On this matter I have argued before on the Air Estimates debates. The point to bear in mind about these Class H reservists in the Royal Air Force "getting away" without any training, is simply this. The R.A.F. at the moment depends on National Service men to meet its cold war commitments, to provide its deterrent power and also to provide an effective, immediately ready air defence in case of war. It is our carefully considered policy only to call up these Class H reservists provided they will be of use to us immediately on the outbreak of war. Clearly, if they have not been very long out of their regular service, they will not have forgotten what we taught them, and it would be often a pure waste of time to call them up.
Similarly, we do not need to refresh men if we do not immediately need them on the outbreak of war, because that would be extending our limited resources quite unnecessarily. There are various other factors which I have mentioned before, such as people doing in civil life what


they would have to do in the Service, and to take them from their jobs in civil life and make them do precisely the same thing in the Air Force would not be acceptable to either side of the House. For these reasons, we do not call them up.
I accept the fact that there is inequality in this system between ourselves and the Army, but there is some inequality in the whole of the National Service system. Some people do their full-time service in extremely comfortable home unit conditions. Others have had to do it in Korea and Malaya. Some people are fortunate enough to be trained in some trade which will be extremely useful to them when they have finished. Others are not so fortunate. Therefore, to attempt to achieve complete equality in this field would be futile. We are certain that our policy is efficient, economic and right.

Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas: Would the Under-Secretary refer to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence the fact that he stated here frankly the inequality of the obligations under the National Service Act, and suggest that there is another argument in favour of the official request from the Opposition for a full inquiry into the working of the National Service Act?

Mr. Ward: As far as the Royal Air Force is concerned, I said earlier that we need these people to keep us going in peace-time. If we cut down the number of National Service men, we should find it extremely difficult to satisfy peace-time requirements, quite apart from building up the reserves.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: May I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary a question, to which as yet I have not had an answer? I appreciate that it is not fair to ask him, as it is not his job, but has he any idea how, when or where these men are going to be taught to become mobile and drive lorries around the country?

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Ross: The Under-Secretary started by saying that the differing conditions of service were caused by the differing needs of the Services concerned. In this case we are creating a new organisation which we all regard as absolutely desirable, but instead of relating the period of training to the actual need of that service it is

being related to something quite outside, namely, the number of days on which men are engaged in ordinary Royal Air Force training. Surely that is contrary to all that he has said about efficiency and economy? We have only to consider the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) in connection with the immense amount of training that is required for this work to appreciate that. Is the Under-Secretary really satisfied that we are going to get an efficient and mobile organisation?

Mr. S. Silverman: Efficient to do what?

Mr. Ross: I should like to know what it will do in Scotland, or where it will be trained in Scotland. As I understand it, the training of these men is not to be related to the need of this mobile service, nor to the amount of training which was given to the experimental mobile squads upon which this organisation has been based. We accepted those original squads as being useful for development, but the amount of training that went into them is far greater than the meagre training which these men will receive under present arrangements.

Mr. Ward: As an hon. Member pointed out earlier, there is no suggestion of increasing the 60 days' statutory liability in the 3½ years' part-time service. The only question is whether we should require a man to do 14 or 21 days a year Upon that question I have already put forward a plea for flexibility. We shall start with 14 days, and if it is possible to give non-continuous training for the additional week, it can be arranged.

Mr. Wigg: I find the hon. Member's reply both realistic and refreshing. I can only hope that his speech will be read by the Secretary of State for War and the Minister of Defence. If we apply the principle which has just been enunciated for the Royal Air Force to the Army, there will be some very far-reaching reforms. The Under-Secretary said that the paramount principle, to him, is the efficiency of the Fighting Service, which he represents in the House. He is calling up and training only those men who contribute, and only for so long as they contribute, to the efficiency of the Service. That is not the system which operates in the Army today and that is the gravamen of our charge against the


Government. We say that there ought to be an inquiry into the working of the National Service Act. I restate that request, but in view of the courteous and realistic reply of the hon. Member——

Mr. James H. Hoy: Before my hon. Friend asks leave to withdraw the Amendment, the Under-Secretary may care to state where in Scotland the training centre will be, especially as we now have one of the Joint Under-Secretaries of State for Scotland here. We would like to know where the centre will be and what purpose it will serve. I have a great deal of sympathy for the suggestion made by the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer), as to traffic and communications, which are exceptionally important. It may be that the centre in Scotland is to be used for that purpose, but the Government may care to take this opportunity of stating their intentions in the matter.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Henderson Stewart): It is intended to establish one of these training centres in Scotland next year. Broadly speaking, its purpose will be the same as that of the other centres. We hope that that will be not only for the convenience of Scottish men who are called up, but will give to our Scottish people a real feeling of taking part in this essential advance of Civil Defence.

Mr. Hoy: The Joint Under-Secretary has said that this centre in Scotland will do what the other centres are intended to do, but, with due respect, we do not know what any of them is intended to do, because nobody has told us. I should like to know what the centre is intended to do and, secondly, where it is likely to be.

Major Lloyd-George: I should have thought it was entirely out of order to refer to that, but I recommend the hon. Member to read the Second Reading debate, where we stated where each of the centres was to be, and what each centre would do.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Not in Scotland.

Major Lloyd-George: I thought it applied to Scotland. I understand that we now have a proposed new Clause which makes it not applicable to Scotland.

Mr. Hughes: On a point of order. That has already been ruled out of order. The Joint Under-Secretary has said that a centre is to be organised somewhere in Scotland. Can he tell us where it is to be?

Mr. Henderson Stewart: It has not been decided.

The Chairman (Sir Charles MacAndrew): The hon. Member said that his new Clause was out of order. It is in order, but it is not selected.

Mr. Wigg: I should like once again to say why I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. Although I am not fully satisfied with the hon. Gentleman's reply, in view of its courtesy and realism, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I beg to move, in page 1, line 22, at the end, to insert:
(4) Any increase attributable to this section in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament under section seven of the Civil Defence Act, 1948, shall be defrayed out of moneys so provided; and the said arrangements may provide for the reimbursement by the designated Minister, out of such moneys, of such amounts as the Treasury may determine in respect of the pay of, and other expenses incurred on account of, members of the naval, military or air forces receiving training under the arrangements referred to in subsection (1) of this section, being amounts which would otherwise fall to be met out of moneys provided by Parliament for navy, army or air force services.
This is a Privilege Amendment, and it may be convenient if I state shortly the effect of the subsection. It provides, first, that the cost of the training—I emphasise the word "training"—shall be met by the designated Minister, that is to say, the Home Secretary or the Minister responsible for giving the Civil Defence training, out of moneys provided by Parliament under Section 7 of the Civil Defence Act, 1948, and, secondly, for the reimbursement by the appropriate Home or Health Department to the appropriate Service Department of expenditure initially incurred by the Service Department on such matters as the pay of the reservists while they are called up.
It may also be convenient if I say a few words about the two Amendments to the Amendment. I do not know whether it is your intention, Sir Charles, to call those Amendments.

The Chairman: I think it will be soon enough to talk about them when they are moved.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: If that is the case, I had better content myself with what I have said, and the hon. Members who are going to move Amendments to the Amendments can state their points on this Amendment as they arise.

Mr. Ede: On a point of order. I should have thought that the Amendment moved by the Joint Under-Secretary should refer to the end of line 22 and not line 23, because the last word in line 23 is "sums" and it does not seem to me that the proposed subsection (4) can run from there.

The Chairman: This is one of those funny things—lines which do not exist.

Mr. Ede: I still think that line 22 is the last line that exists. I take it that the hon. Member is not moving to add subsection (4) at the end of a non-existent line 23, but at the end of the existing line 22.
I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out from the second "provided," to the end of the proposed Amendment, and to add:
but the said arrangements shall not provide for the reimbursement by the designated Minister, out of such moneys, of any amounts in respect of the pay of, and other expenses incurred on account of, members of the naval, military or air forces receiving training under the arrangements referred to in the foregoing subsections of this section, being amounts which fall to be met out of moneys provided by Parliament for navy, army or air force services.
This is very helpful to the Home Secretary. It will be observed that the words I propose should be left out of the new subsection begin thus:
And the said arrangements may provide for the reimbursement by the designated Minister, out of such moneys, of such amounts as the Treasury may determine in respect of the pay of"—
of the men whom he gets for training. I notice that the Air Force has fled. The reason why will appear. This really means that this money for the pay of these men, who are still members of the Air Force, will have to be borne in the end on the Home Secretary's Vote. It is not as if these men were being transferred to Civil Defence and ceasing to be members of the Air Force.

[Interruption.] I tell the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland that even a Scotsman might have known that the Treasury is far worse than any Scotsman in the matter of getting money out of a Civil Department and handing it over to the military.
These men will not be members of the Civil Defence Corps. They will still be Air Force men. All that we are told about them is that it is not expected that the Air Force will want them for the first 12 months of the war. Presumably, however, at some time after the first 12 months they will be recalled to the Air Force. Moreover, all through their training they remain under the discipline of the Air Force. The Home Secretary provides the instructors but the Air Force retains the discipline, and these men at all times are members of the Air Force. It seems to me to be quite wrong that while they remain Air Force men they should be borne on the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's Vote. He is not responsible for their discipline; he is responsible only for their training.
6.45 p.m.
We on this side of the Committee hope that this is a very small beginning of what may develop into a substantial training experiment and practice by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's Department. If it were proposed that these men should become members of the Civil Defence Corps I imagine that there would be something to be said for this arrangement. Indeed, it would obviously be the duty of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to pay for them out of his Vote. However, the order to a man to attend a course or an individual lecture or a single practice in Civil Defence training will not be given by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. It will be given by the officer commanding the Air Force unit which is undergoing training. While I have no doubt there will be amicable arrangements as to the time and circumstances of this training the order for disobedience to which a man can be charged will not be an order of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman; it will be an order of the Air Force officer commanding.
It is trouble enough to get money for Civil Defence. There were some pretty


sarcastic comments by the Public Accounts Committee on the failure to spend the money when it had been voted. I think that the comments would have been a great deal more sarcastic if the Public Accounts Committee had known the objects on which the Civil Defence money had been spent. We were asked, I think by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), what is Civil Defence? The Civil Defence Act, 1948, starts in a way most unusual for statutes by saying what Civil Defence does not include. It does not tell us what it does include; it tells us what it does not include.
Many of the things on which this money is spent would be thought by the ordinary citizens of the country not to be Civil Defence. I do not go quite as far as my hon. Friend, who sometimes talks as if Civil Defence included merely the protection of the ordinary civilian population from hostile attack. It covers a good deal more than that. However, I am quite sure that if we were to ask the ordinary man in the street, "What does Civil Defence mean?" he would say that it meant, "Pulling me out of a bombed house reasonably scientifically if it collapses on top of me, and getting me to hospital." He would say it meant personal assistance of that nature. It also includes a large amount of expenditure on the Post Office and other organisations and people that the ordinary man in the street would not regard as being a part of Civil Defence, as he understands the term colloquially.
The Committee should make it quite plain that Civil Defence grants are to be spent on Civil Defence in its widest aspect and for the training of people who will be Civil Defence personnel under the control of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and the other designated Ministers. The Bill says in effect that he can have men for training, to give them a little spare time occupation. To use the words of the Joint Under-Secretary of State, the raison d'etre of the Bill and the Amendment is to provide that the Home Secretary can have them and that while he has them he can pay for them. That would be all very well if at the end of the training they were then to be under the control of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, but the minute the Air Force wants them they are to go back to the Air Force.
In these circumstances the Bill provides only a series of lectures for them such as are given by a great many bodies in the country. For instance, I have known members of the Royal Army Pay Corps sent to technical colleges for their training in the techniques of accountancy and the other things by which they manage to bring the private soldier into debt. It is a highly-skilled occupation. Anybody who has had charge of the pay and mess book knows the way in which the soldier's final account never appears to coincide with what went through the orderly room. When it gets into the hands of the accountants it is astounding how much has been expended on that soldier, half of which he has never heard about, and the way in which he has been held accountable for damages which occurred on occasions when he was not even present with the corps.
The pay on these occasions is not reimbursed by the Ministry of Education to the Service concerned. These people are their pupils for the time being, just as they will be the Home Secretary's pupils, and the Army pays for their instruction. It therefore seems to me that the arrangement proposed here cannot be defended. In as much as these men and all the other men who will be called up in the future under this Bill will remain, during their training and after it, members of the Armed Forces, we suggest that their pay should be provided out of the Service Estimates and not out of the miserable sums which so far have been available for Civil Defence. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman succeeds in getting sufficient men to do the job well, the Bill will make a very considerable hole in the sums of money which have so far been devoted to Civil Defence.
This seems to me to be quite indefensible as a proposition on the way in which moneys voted by Parliament should be spent. I think that the Service to which the men belongs, to which they will return and which throughout their training will be the body which gives them orders, should be the body to pay.

Mr. Bellenger: It would be useful if the Joint Under-Secretary of State would tell us why the Government have changed their mind on this issue, because they now propose something entirely different from


that contained in the original subsection (4). Is it because something has happened which I suggested, in speaking on an earlier Amendment, might happen? Is it the case that the Defence Committee or the Joint Chiefs of Staff have put their heads together and said to the Home Office, "You are to have these men, our reservists, and you will have to pay for them"?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I am not quite clear what the right hon. Gentleman means when he says the Government have changed their mind.

Mr. Bellenger: They must have changed their mind because they are now proposing something which is different from the proposition in the Bill originally presented. There must have been at any rate a change in emphasis. The Government now propose that the Home Office shall provide the money for the pay and other expenses of these National Service men who are to be called up.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: That was in the original Bill but, having come from another place, it was taken out purely as a matter of Privilege. The proposal is now being restored.

Mr. Bellenger: Thank you. I now understand that the proposition is exactly the same as that which the Government originally had in mind, but the fact remains that the Services have together insisted on the Home Office paying for the men. There are certain services which should be paid for by the Home Office when they use National Service men. What precisely they are I do not know, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain how these services will be paid for if his proposal is accepted.
There are three designated Ministers, and presumably the three Departments will be chargeable. How will the services be allocated to the Home Office or the Ministry of Health or the Secretary of State for Scotland? Will the decision be based on the type of duties which the men perform? We have been told that they will be trained in fire fighting and ambulance services. Is the time spent in training for the ambulance services to be paid for by the Ministry of Health? Are the fire-fighting services to be paid for by the Home Office?
This is one more example of the confusion reigning in the Government which has caused them to introduce the Bill in advance of the comprehensive review of our Defence Services. Had we had that review before us, I believe we should have been better able to judge who should pay for these services—the Home Office or the Service Departments. In any event, the Air Ministry must be holding a lot of money in hand for the men they have not called up, and at some time they will have to explain to the House why they have asked for certain monies which they have no intention of spending.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The Amendment merely raises the question, out of which pocket is the money to be taken? It is not a question of whether more or less money is to be spent.
The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) says that the men will remain R.A.F. men and subject to R.A.F. discipline, and that is perfectly true. But I do not think that is the test, which is whether the men are to do these services for R.A.F. purposes or for Civil Defence purposes. The fact that they are subject to R.A.F. discipline is simply a matter of administration.
The right hon. Gentleman then argued that Civil Defence grants should be spent only on those who will be under the control of the Home Secretary or other Civil Defence designated Ministers. The Reservists who are called up under this scheme will be under my right hon. and gallant Friend's control. It is true that they will be subject to R.A.F. discipline as a matter of machinery, but while they are doing their training they will be under my right hon. and gallant Friend's control, and if they are used in the event of an emergency—that is to say, if they have to be used in operations—they will again be under the control of my right hon. and gallant Friend. They will remain in the R.A.F. but will be under Home Office or Ministry of Health or Scottish Office control as the case may be.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the moment the R.A.F. wanted them back they would have to go back. That is not the intention. The intention is that these men shall be a reserve against an emergency and that, if there is an emergency, they will be immediately available for Civil Defence purposes. The intention is that they will be so available for at least


a year. They will therefore be genuinely Civil Defence men, although the discipline will be provided by serving men.

Mr. Bellenger: They will still be on the R.A.F. Reserve?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: That is so, as a matter of machinery. The alternative would be to pass a whole rigmarole of legislation in order to provide the same machinery as that which is already to our hand. I think that everyone will agree that this is a simple way of dealing with the matter, but the important point is that the men will be available. It is true that it will be for a year only. But I think that the Committee will agree that to try to envisage anything beyond a year in these circumstances would be totally unrealistic.
7.0 p.m.
This service is a Civil Defence service, and we believe that, therefore, the right pocket from which to take the expenses is the Civil Defence pocket. The right hon. Gentleman cited the case of the Army paying for soldiers who were doing a course at some civilian institution. It is exactly on that principle that we are working here. Soldiers who are doing a course in a civilian institution are doing that course for the purpose of the Army and to improve themselves as soldiers. In these cases, they will be R.A.F. men doing a course for the purposes of Civil Defence to equip themselves as civil defenders; therefore the right pocket is the Civil Defence pocket.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) asked how the cost of this Service would be paid. It will be paid by the appropriate Minister. That is to say those men who are trained in Home Office services, such as fire-fighting, will be paid for from Home Office funds, those on ambulance services will be paid for through the Ministry of Health, and those who are trained in Scotland will be paid for by the Scottish Office Departments. That will be the method of accounting. It is a simple and straightforward one, and I commend it to the Committee.

Mr. Bellenger: How will the Government distinguish between these three different Departments in a mobile column?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: For purposes of training, they will not be in a mobile

column, and when they are in a mobile column it will be perfectly simple. We shall not mix the columns: there will be fire-fighting columns and ambulance columns, which will be used for the appropriate purposes, and accounted for by the appropriate Minister.

Mr. S. Silverman: I have been getting more puzzled as the debate proceeds, and I did not find it very clear at the beginning, so now I am in the state of utmost mental confusion. I do not know what the Joint Under-Secretary means—he may be quite right—when he says that the mobile column will not be a mixed column. If not, why do we want it mobile? I know nothing about these matters, but I should have thought that the whole idea of having a mobile column, which can be taken from an area not affected to an area that has been affected, is so that the column can take into the affected area every kind of service likely to be required or useful in that area. I know that is not the principal point in the present discussion, and I do not want to develop it, but it is one more indication, so it seems to me, that the Government are, if possible, more confused about this than even I am.
With regard to the financial point, the Joint Under-Secretary stated that this is really only a question of which pocket the money comes out of. I notice that there is no doubt in his mind about whose pocket the money comes out of. We all know that. But the question is which pocket. He appeared to treat that as a matter of no importance at all. I am afraid that I do not agree with him.
If my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has his way, the money will come out of the amounts voted by the House of Commons as part of their armament expenditure. If the Government have their way, it will come out of the Civil Estimates, so what the Government are really proposing is to transfer part of the cost of the armament programme from the Defence Services from the Civil Estimates. I would not regard that as an unimportant matter.
Quite clearly, whatever services these men are to be called upon to perform, they are people who are on the R.A.F. Reserve. The Joint Under-Secretary said that that was a matter of machinery. I know what he meant, but it is rather a misleading word to use, because if they


were not on the R.A.F. Reserve, as the Bill at present stands, their services would not be called upon at all.
They are people who are liable to do some service in any case, whether this Bill is passed or not, and they remain subject to disciplinary control, as indeed they must, of the R.A.F. I should have thought that this was very far from being a mere accounting point. On the contrary, I should have thought, although this is a small question of public finance, that it was important to make certain that these men were paid for out of the Armed Forces Estimates and not out of the Civil Estimates, whether Home Office, Ministry of Health or any other Civil Department.

Mr. Ede: I have listened to what the Joint Under-Secretary had to say. He did not convince me that the Home Office ought to pay. He said that it did not matter very much from which pocket the money comes. I am concerned with the problem of getting money into pockets, and it is a great deal easier to get money into the Service pocket than into the Home Office pocket. I should very much regret to see any money that had got into the Home Office pocket going for the pay of men who will remain Service men. I ask the hon. Gentleman to remember in his arguments that there

is nothing in the Bill which says that in a case of emergency these men shall be with the Home Office and the mobile column for one year. There is nothing that says that they shall be there for a day.

When it comes to a contest between the Armed Services and Civil Defence in the event of an emergency, I would not put very much money on the Civil Defence Department coming out on top. These men are Service men. The Joint Under-Secretary says that they come under the control of the Home Secretary. Let us suppose, human nature being what it is, that there comes a day when there is a dispute between an R.A.F. officer in charge of the discipline and the head of the defence school as to the appropriate time for the lectures and practices to begin. The effective order is not the one given by the Home Office official. The effective order is the one given by the R.A.F. officer.

In view of the nature of the reply, I recommend my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide in support of the Amendment.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'subsection,' stand part of the proposed Amendment."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 210; Noes, 187.

Division No. 225.]
AYES
[7.10 p.m


Aitken, W. T.
Carr, Robert
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Cary, Sir Robert
Garner-Evans, E. H.


Alport, C. J. M.
Channon, H.
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Glover, D.


Arbuthnot, John
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Cole, Norman
Gough, C. F. H.


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Colegate, W. A.
Gower, H. R.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Graham, Sir Fergus


Baldwin, A. E.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Gridley, Sir Arnold


Barber, Anthony
Crosrthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Grimond, J.


Barlow, Sir John
Crouch, R. F.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Davidson, Viscountess
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Deedes, W. F.
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Deedes, W. F.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Digby, S. Wingfield
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)


Bishop, F. P.
Donner, Sir P. W.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George


Black, C. W.
Doughty, G. J. A.
Hay, John


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Boyle, Sir Edward
Duncan, Capt J. A. L.
Heath, Edward


Braine, B. R.
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Higgs, J. M. C.


Braithwaite Sir Gurney
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Errington, Sir Eric
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Fell, A.
Hirst, Geoffrey


Brooman-White, R. C.
Finlay, Graeme
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Fisher, Nigel
Hollis, M. C.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F
Hope, Lord John


Bullard, D. G.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry


Burden, F. F. A.
Fester, John
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.


Campbell, Sir David
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence




Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Mellor, Sir John
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Moore, Sir Thomas
Stevens, Geoffrey


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Hughes-Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Neave, Airey
Storey, S.


Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S)


Hutchison, James (Scetstoun)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Summers, G. S.


Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold


Iremonger T. L.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Teeling, W.


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Nugent, G. R. H.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Oakshott, H. D.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Jones, A. (Hall Green)
O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W)


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Kaberry, D.
Osborne, C.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N


Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Page, R. G.
Tilney, John


Kerr, H. W.
Perkins, Sir Robert
Touche, Sir Gordon


Lambton, Viscount
Peto, Brig. C. H. M
Turner, H. F. L.


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Pitman, I. J.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Vane, W. M. F.


Lindsay, Martin
Powell, J. Enoch
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K


Linstead, Sir H. N.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L
Vosper, D. F.


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Raikes, Sir Victor
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Ramsden, J. E.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wall, Major Patrick


Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.
Remnant, Hon. P.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcestor)


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Ronton, D. L. M.
Ward, Miss I (Tynemouth)


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Robertson, Sir David
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Watkinson, H. A.


MaoCallum, Major D.
Russell, R. S.
Wellwood, W.


McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Macdonald, Sir Peter
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Scott, R. Donald
Wills, G.


Macleod, Rt. Hon. lain (Enfield, W.)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Shepherd, William
Wood, Hon. R.


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W)



Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)



Marlowe, A. A. H.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C
Spearman, A. C. M.
Mr. Studholme and Mr. Redmayne.


Medlicott, Brig. F.
Spens, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)





NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Ede, Rt Hon. J. C.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J
Fernyhough, E.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)


Bence, C. R.
Fienburgh, W.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Benn, Hon, Wedgwood
Finch, H. J.
Keenan, W.


Benson, G.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Kenyon, C.


Beswick, F.
Follick, M.
Key, Rt. Hon. C W


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Foot, M. M.
King, Dr. H. M


Blackburn, F.
Forman, J. C
Lawson, G. M.


Blenkinsop, A.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Boardman, H.
Freeman, John (Watford)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Bowden, H. W.
Gibson, C. W.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)


Brockway, A. F.
Gooch, E. G.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
MacColl, J. E.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Grey, C. F.
Mclnnes, J.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Burke, W. A.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
McLeavy, F.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Carmichael, J.
Hamilton, W. W.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Champion, A. J.
Hannan, W.
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Chapman, W. D.
Hardy, E. A.
Manuel, A. C.


Chetwynd, G. R
Hargreaves, A.
Marquand, Rt. Hon H A


Clunie, J.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Mayhew, C. P.


Colliek, P. H.
Hastings, S.
Mellish, R. J.


Collins, V. J
Hayman, F. H.
Messer, Sir F


Corbel. Mrs. Freda
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Mikardo, Ian


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Mitchison, G. R


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Herbison, Miss M.
Monslow, W.


Daines, P.
Hobson, C. R.
Moody, A. S.


Dalton. Rt. Hon. H
Holman, P.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Houghton, Douglas
Morley, R


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hoy, J. H.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Mulley, F. W.


Deer, G.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Oldfield, W. H.


Delargy, H. J.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Oliver, G. H.


Dodds, N. N
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Oswald, T.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Padley, W. E.







Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Weitzman, D.


Palmer, A. M. F.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Pannell, Charles
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
West, D. G.


Pargiter, G. A.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Wheeldon, W. E.


Parker, J.
Skeffington, A. M.
While, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Paton, J.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Peart, T. F.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Wigg, George


Popplewell, E
Snow, J. W.
Wilkins, W. A.


Porter, G.
Sorensen, R. W.
Willey, F. T.


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Sparks, J. A.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Proctor, W. T.
Steele, T.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)


Rankin, John
Stross, Dr. Barnett
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Re[...]ves, J.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Willis, E. G.


Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Sylvester, G. O.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Robinson, Kenneth (St. Paneras, N.)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Ross, William
Timmons, J.
Wyatt, W. L.


Shackleton, E. A. A.
Turner-Samuels, M.
Yates, V. F.


Shaweross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley
Viant, S. p.



Short, E. W.
Warbey, W. N.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Holmes and Mr. Wallace.


Question put, and agreed to.

Proposed words there inserted.

Mr. de Freitas: I beg to move, in page 2, line 11, to leave out subsection (5).
Would it be convenient, Sir Charles, if we discussed at the same time the second new Clause, which has the rubric "Duties of armed forces to include civil defence and training therefor."

The Chairman: If that is agreeable to the Committee.

Mr. de Freitas: Hon. Members will see that the words of subsection (5) are repeated in the proposed new Clause. The effect of the Amendment to delete subsection (5) and the bringing in of the new Clause would be to indicate the greater importance of these words and the fact that we regard them as so important that they should be in a Clause by themselves.
My right hon. Friend gave notice on Second Reading that he intended to move that should be so. It is an indication of the Government's failure to perceive the importance of what they were doing here—the importance of Civil Defence. If there were any doubt, why on earth did they not remove it earlier? This is said to be for the clearing up of the doubt, but why was not the doubt removed earlier?
Since there is a doubt, let us consider the importance of this subject. Parliament is making it clear that Civil Defence is part of the duties of the Armed Forces and not only of the old and infirm; making it clear that Civil Defence is more important than the mere making of tea, important as that is in the neighbourly nature of, let us call it traditional, Civil Defence; making it clear that in modern

war the Armed Forces have a part to play, not only overseas but here at home.
In the very year that we may be formally recognising that our military frontiers are on the Continent, we are acknowledging here the importance of a front line which is not on the Continent but right down the middle of every street in every city. We believe this recognition of the rôle of the Armed Forces is so important that it should be dignified by being made into a separate Clause.
There is a point on the wording about which I wonder if the Home Secretary would comment. Some of my hon. Friends and I do not understand exactly the significance of saying "those forces include civil defence" when the definition of Civil Defence in the Civil Defence Act, 1948, is
'civil defence' does not include the provision or maintenance of a shelter which is used or intended to be used wholly or mainly by naval, military or air forces … etcetera.
What is the point about that when we are referring here to the Armed Forces?

Major Lloyd-George: We are prepared to accept the deletion of subsection (5) and the insertion of the new Clause but I could not allow it to be Clause 1 in the Bill because it is a purely declaratory Clause. If the hon. Member will make it Clause 2 we shall be happy to accept it.
I will have a look at the point he made about Civil Defence. I know that in that definition there may be confusion.

Mr. Ede: I should like to thank the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for accepting this Amendment. Although this is a provision for the removal of doubt, it is so important as establishing


a new principle so far as Civil Defence is concerned that it should have a new Clause and not be tucked away as subsection (5) of another Clause in the Bill. I do not mind whether this is Clause 1 or Clause 2. I very much doubt whether anything we have said here will have much effect on those marvellous people the draftsmen when they get hold of a Clause and decide where they are going to tuck it into the Bill.
Hon. Members will have noticed that if another place puts a new Clause into one of our Bills it always appears as "new Clause A" to be inserted after Clause so and so. This is a Lords Bill and we raise no objection to any influence which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman can bring to bear on another place. A distinguished ancestor of his 45 years ago was very unsuccessful at first in persuading the noble Lords to do as he wanted, but it may be they will recollect the fate that overtook them when they resisted him, and they may believe some virtues may be hereditary. I wish that all the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's father's virtues had been hereditary.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I beg to move, in page 2, line 16, at the end, to insert:
(6) Members of the armed forces of the Crown shall not be subject to military or air force law during training in civil defence in pursuance of subsection (1) of this section.
This is an Amendment which I am sure the Government will accept as it is consequential to a provision they have carried in which they have laid it down that the R.A.F. personnel will be under the Home Office and paid by the Home Office. If they are paid by the Home Office surely they should cease to be under military law.
Take for example the fire service; there will be a civilian fire service but if men are inefficient they can presumably be discharged from the service. R.A.F. men, however, may presumably be court martialled and sentenced. If a man in the civilian fire brigade does not like some of the things he may be asked to do he will resign and go into some more useful occupation. But the poor R.A.F. man has to obey every order, however ridiculous it may be and however useless he may think it, and if he does not obey he is liable to military discipline. So I suggest that if people are to be trained

as fire fighters in the same way as civilians it should not be under military law but under civil law, as other members of the Civil Defence organisation are trained. I thank the Government in advance for accepting the Amendment.

Mr. Ward: This Amendment would remove Royal Air Force reservists from the jurisdiction of the Royal Air Force law while carrying out Civil Defence training. But as the Committee knows, it is the intention that these men should be administered during their Civil Defence training by Royal Air Force officers and non-commissioned officers, and if this Amendment were passed administration and discipline by these officers and N.C.Os. would become quite impossible. For this reason, much as I dislike, as always, disappointing the hon. Member for South Ayshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), I am afraid that we cannot accept this Amendment.

Mr. S. Silverman: I think my hon. Friend will be very disappointed with that answer, and I share his disappointment. I did not intervene before partly because my hon. Friend needs no assistance when he is presenting a case to the Committee and partly because I wanted to hear what possible answer there could be. Having heard what the hon. Gentleman said, I am still left wondering what possible answer there could be.
7.30 p.m.
What the hon. Gentleman has told us is that, having called these men up under the National Service Act into the R.A.F. as Reserve members of that Force, it would be anomalous if they were not then subject to military discipline during the period of training. But the anomaly arises out of the Bill, because it is anomalous to some extent for men in the Royal Air Force to work under the control of a civilian department, be paid by a civilian department and be trained by a civilian department.
I am not arguing whether that is a bad thing, because the Committee has already decided that issue. The Committee having decided it, my hon. Friend seems to be quite right in saying that his Amendment is consequential on what has already been decided. Having decided that these men shall no longer be on the pay-roll of the Royal Air Force but on the pay-roll of the Home


Office, and that they shall be trained side by side with civilian trainees in work that will be done, if unfortunately it has to be done at all, partly by men so trained and partly by civilian members of the Civil Defence Service, why then should they be subject to a different kind of discipline, a different kind of control and a different kind of sanction as will follow if this Amendment of my hon. Friend is not accepted?
It would not, of course, be the only anomaly. There is a similar anomaly in subsection (3). I refer to it only for the purposes of comparison and not to propose to do anything about it or to make any amendment in it. But if the hon. Gentleman will look at subsection (3) he will find that there is an express provision that a Section of the Crown Proceedings Act shall not apply to these men. What is that section? The Crown Proceedings Act was passed by Parliament with the intention of removing a gap in our law which prevented a subject, who had been injured by the negligence of a Government Department, from getting the damages from that Government Department that a civilian would have got if the same damage had been caused by a civilian. I think that was a very good thing. It was one of the many good things done by my right hon. Friends when they were the Government.
There was, however, a Section which exempted from the benefits of those provisions members of the Armed Forces whose injuries were caused, however negligently, in the performance of their duties. It is proposed to continue that in the case of these men. That is a very anomalous situation, because these men will be working under civilian control in the same job as civilians, who are within the scope of provisions which protect them, but if similar injuries are suffered by Service personnel they are not protected. I think my hon. Friend's Amendment, if accepted, would cure that anomaly as well as the one with which he has dealt by taking these men out of the scope of military law altogether. Nothing would be lost by that.
I concede that there would be some anomalies and if there were any method of dealing with all the anomalies I would be in favour of it. But the only way to cure the anomalies is to withdraw the Bill altogether. I am in favour of that

course, as is my hon. Friend, and if the Government do it they will receive our support. I do not think the Government will do it, and so there will be anomalies. The choice before the Committee is to accept the smaller and less inconvenient anomaly. I am sure that my hon. Friend's suggestion is less anomalous than the Government's.

Mr. Ward: Perhaps I may answer the hon. Gentleman very briefly. He has made it quite clear in the concluding passages of his speech, that he would welcome the withdrawal of this Bill, and, of course, the one way to wreck it would be to accept this Amendment.

Mr. Silverman: Why?

Mr. Ward: Because it could not work.

Mr. Silverman: Why could it not work?

Mr. Ward: Because it would be quite impossible for officers to maintain any sort of discipline over these men unless they were under the Air Force Act.

Mr. Silverman: I wonder if the hon. Gentleman would explain that a little more.
I do not think that my hon. Friend moved this Amendment for wrecking purposes, and I am not supporting it for wrecking purposes. It is a perfectly sincere Amendment to make a perfectly sincere point. These men having been called up under the National Service Act, and having been set to work side by side with civilians, what would be the difficulty in maintaining discipline over them in exactly the same way discipline is maintained over the civilians with whom they are working on a common job under the same direction?

Mr. H. Hynd: I would point out to the Joint Under-Secretary of State that for the fire brigade, including the auxiliary firemen, there is a code of discipline which can be enforced without military discipline.

Mr. Ward: These airmen will serve in what is virtually an R.A.F. unit. They are all together under their own officers and N.C.Os. It is true they are working side by side with civilians, but that is nothing new for the Royal Air Force.

Mr. Silverman: I did not say it was.

Mr. Ward: It does not create any anomaly.

Mr. Silverman: I was dealing with the hon. Gentleman's point that it would be impossible to maintain any discipline over them at all unless it was military discipline under the Air Force Act. I was pointing out that they are working side by side with, and under the same direction as, civilians who are not under the Air Force code and over whom it is admitted there is no difficulty in maintaining discipline. Why should there not be the same discipline for these Air Force men?

Mr. Ward: I am not concerned with the administration of the civilian element. I am concerned with the administration and the discipline of the Royal Air Force element. In many establishments in the R.A.F. it will be found that officers and men are being taught and trained by civilian instructors. Many of them are highly respected and very experienced people. They work very happily side by side with R.A.F. personnel, and there is never any anomaly or difficulty.
At the same time in these training establishments it is always accepted that the Air Force element should be dealt with under the Air Force Act, and the civilian instructors are under a different sort of arrangement. That is all that is proposed here. There is no difficulty which will arise out of this Bill about which we did not know and about which we have not known for many years. We are perfectly capable of dealing with it, but I assure the Committee that it would be quite impossible in the matter of jurisdiction over our Air Force element, under this Civil Defence training scheme, if the Air Force element were removed from our control, as is proposed by this Amendment.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: As the Government consistently refuse to accept any help in improving this Bill, and as I take up the position of "Blessed is he that expecteth nothing and he shall not be disappointed," it will come as no surprise to the Committee if I say I do not propose to press the Amendment. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. de Freitas: Earlier, I gave notice to the hon. Gentleman that my hon. Friends and myself wanted explanation of an apparent difficulty in regard to the definition of Civil Defence in the 1948 Act—
'civil defence' does not include the provision or maintenance of a shelter which is used or intended to be used wholly or mainly by naval, military or air forces ….
That seems to me to be inconsistent with our discussions and quite inconsistent with the intention of this Bill.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: This is a technical point, but think I can explain it. Under Clause 1 (1), if these reservists undertake the making of shelters, they will only do so by way of training, because that subsection is concerned only with training. Therefore, they will be making shelters within the meaning of subsection (1) of Section 9 of the Civil Defence Act. Under subsection (5), or the new Clause as it now is, if members of the Armed Forces make shelters they will be making shelters for themselves, and it does not need a declaration to say that it is part of the duty of the Armed Forces to make shelters for themselves.

Mr. de Freitas: I only wish the hon. Gentleman had been with me last night when I was doing my homework, because at first sight this appeared most extraordinary. I wonder if he will look at the definitions in the 1948 Act to see if they are in accordance with modern conditions and the type of Civil Defence which we visualise today?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I cannot give any undertaking of action, but I will certainly look at that.

Mr. S. Silverman: I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will look at this again seriously between now and the Report stage. I congratulate him on his ingenious explanation, which was offered to us with such a charming air of sincerity, upon which he is to be separately congratulated. One could almost think that the hon. Gentleman himself thought it was a satisfactory explanation, but I hardly think he could have done so. The new Clause is quite clear. It says, "It is hereby declared—", so that the first point one has to make is that this does not purport to be making any new law or any Amendment in the law, it is purely declaratory. The purpose of a


declaratory Clause is not to change the law but to declare it again for the removal of any doubt which might have crept in. It goes on:
that the duties which members of the armed forces of the Crown may be called upon to undertake as members of those forces include civil defence. …
As has been abundantly clear from our discussions, Civil Defence is capable of definition, but the attempt to define it for the purposes of this Bill has not satisfied many members of the Committee. However, there is a definition of Civil Defence on the Statute Book in the very Act of which this Clause is declared to be declaratory. The inference seems to me to be irresistible, therefore, that Civil Defence in the new Clause must have the same definition as it has in the 1948 Act.

Mr. de Freitas: It goes even further, because subsection (6) states that expressly.

Mr. Silverman: Yes, so that what is abundantly clear as a matter of inference is that it is expressly enacted by this very subsection (6):
… the expressions 'civil defence' and 'designated Minister' have the same meanings as in the Civil Defence Act, 1948.
7.45 p.m.
So that makes it clear that the one thing under this Bill which a Royal Air Force man cannot do is to build a shelter for the R.A.F. What the hon. Gentleman seeks to do is to say that somebody else will build a shelter for the R.A.F. and that these men, when called on, may work with them, and although the others will be building a shelter, these men will not be building a shelter, they will be training in the building of something. This is too fine-drawn. It cannot possibly bear examination, and if the hon. Gentleman wishes to remove the inhibition quite clearly contained in the 1948 Act, and expressly repeated in this Bill, he must have a new definition Clause which changes the definition, at any rate for the purposes of this Bill.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I think we should have a further statement as to whether or not it will be possible for these R.A.F. men to proceed in the work of building deep shelters; because the American Air Force has taken the precaution of having

a deep shelter 60 miles from Washington for the benefit of the organisation of the military defence of the United States. So apparently there are not to be any deep shelters for the civilian population, but there is to be the deepest possible protection for the people who will organise the war in which the civilian population will be obliterated.
Supposing the Air Ministry in this country decides that a special deep shelter needs to be built for the Air Ministry or the War Office? Supposing it decides to modernise a deep coal mine for the purpose of giving security and protection to the War Office and the Cabinet and the Headquarters of the R.A.F.? Will it be legal then for the R.A.F. men, who are presumably to be called upon to carry out this Civil Defence work, to build a shelter for the chiefs of the R.A.F.?

Mr. Wigg: The Minister ought not to leave us where he has tried to leave us, because we are relying upon a definition of Civil Defence according to subsection (6) which is difficult to understand when one refers to the Civil Defence Act, 1948. That definition in Section 9 (1) reads:
'civil defence' does not include the provision or maintenance of a shelter which is used or intended to be used wholly or mainly by naval, military or air forces …
Later on in that subsection there is a definition of a Civil Defence shelter——
any shelter other than a shelter which is used or intended to be used wholly or mainly by naval, military or air forces;
If there was one thought at the back of the minds of those who laid down that policy it was to keep the Armed Forces as far away from civil defence as possible. Civil Defence means the defence of civilians by civilians and it has nothing to do with the Armed Forces. Now we are asked to agree to a Bill which is going back on that policy, which is trying to bring the Armed Forces into Civil Defence. In order to do that, the Minister is relying upon utterly bewildering definitions, if not inadequate ones.
It certainly adds nothing to clarity to rely on the definition in the Civil Defence Act, 1948, which was never intended to deal with this matter. As a distinguished lawyer, the Joint Under-Secretary may well know what all this is about, but to one who, like myself, is scared of lawyers


this procedure does not add much light to the darkness in which I am surrounded. I should be obliged if the hon. Gentleman could help me.

Mr. Ian Harvey: Although I am one who is also scared of lawyers, particularly in the presence of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), I do not share the difficulties of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), who appears to have this matter the wrong way round. Under the original Act it was intended to be ensured that civilians ought not to be employed on building shelters for military personnel, who ought to be able to defend themselves in that respect. The Bill in no way contradicts that. It merely says that military personnel shall be called to the defence of civilians. I see nothing incompatible there, though I agree that a little clarification would be in order. In view of the undertaking given by my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary to look at the matter, I think that we might leave it there.

Mr. S. Silverman: I hope that the hon. Member's terror of lawyers will not be increased by me. I assure him that I am the most harmless of lawyers.

Mr. Harvey: I hope that the hon. Member does not mean by that the most ineffectual.

Mr. Silverman: No. All this is a matter of definition by Act of Parliament. If one has in an Act of Parliament a definition of Civil Defence which states that people shall not be employed to build a R.A.F. shelter and then one has another Act of Parliament which uses the words "Civil Defence" in the same sense, it must inevitably follow, whatever one's terror of lawyers may be, that men called up under the new Act will be no more liable to build R.A.F. shelters than they were under the old Act.

Mr. de Freitas: I take it that the Joint Under-Secretary did give an undertaking earlier that he would look at the question of definition.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: indicated assent.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.—(SHORT TITLE.)

Mr. Wigg: I beg to move, in page 2, line 20, to leave out "Civil Defence (Armed Forces)," and to insert: "Armed Forces (Civil Defence)."
The purpose of the Bill is to provide for the Armed Forces. It declares that the Armed Forces shall be required during part-time training to do Civil Defence work. I should have thought that it was reasonable and logical to accept our Amendment. It is not merely a matter of putting words on the Order Paper. It has been our endeavour on Second Reading and again today to do all we can to help the Government and to make the Minister aware that he has the backing of the whole Committee in his attempt to build up this service—I want to get away from the words "Civil Defence." We want a new form of words. The Bill is a move in the right direction. The Committee is behind the Minister, who has the support of all parties.
Not only has the Minister a job to do in standing up to his colleagues and educating them, but also in educating public opinion. He will not be able to get very far unless he can take public opinion with him. I should have thought, therefore that it would have been quite useful for it to go forth that Parliament has decided that the Armed Forces are to be trained and brought into this service, though not as far as we would have wished.
The Bill, however, is a first step in bringing the Armed Forces into association with the civilian authorities to prepare, when resources are allocated, a reasonably adequate system of defence against air attack. I hope very much that if only as a tribute to the non-party spirit which has governed our proceedings the Joint Under-Secretary will be able to accept the Amendment without further discussion.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The Bill is essentially a Civil Defence Measure.

Mr. Wigg: No.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Its primary purpose is not so much to lay an additional Civil Defence obligation on the Armed Forces as to make certain specific members of those forces exclusively available for mobile column duties in the first phase of a war. I admit that there is a difference


of opinion on the emphasis that should be given there. I recognise that hon. Members opposite have argued for an emphasis the other way, but I cannot reconcile that with our proceedings. We have discussed the Bill all along—and even the Opposition have discussed it—on the basis that Civil Defence is our primary consideration.

Mr. Ede: What does the hon. Gentleman mean by using the word "even" in saying that "even the Opposition" have done this?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. I did not mean to disparage the Opposition. The Opposition have even done this. I think that the Committee on the whole has recognised that Civil Defence is what we have primarily in mind, and for that reason I am afraid that I must ask the Committee to stick to the title as suggested in the Bill.

Mr. H. Hynd: I am very disappointed with that reply. I should have thought that the Amendment proposed a very simple and logical alteration which could well have been accepted. The Joint Under-Secretary says that the Bill is specifically a Civil Defence Bill. The Bill makes no alteration at all to the case of those who are now doing Civil Defence work. The Bill is designed to apply not to the Civil Defence people but to the Armed Forces.
They are the people, and the only people, who are affected. Therefore, it seems to me that for all practical purposes, people who in future will want to look at this Bill when it becomes an Act will say, "What was the alteration that was made to conditions of service in the Armed Forces in 1954?" They will turn to the letter "A" to look up Armed Forces and eventually will find the Act listed under Civil Defence. It would be far better, even now, if the Government put the matter in proper order and called the Bill the "Armed Forces (Civil Defence)" Bill.

Mr. Wigg: Could the Joint Under-Secretary amplify his reply? It has been very sketchy indeed. It is not good enough to come here with a carefully prepared brief and not deal with what is said in the debate. The Bill places a

legal liability on Armed Forces of the Crown. That is all. The Home Secretary was most careful and went out of his way to repeat over and over again to the House that the Bill was a beginning. The re-deployment of our Forces, in view of changing conditions, had been the subject of most careful examination and the Bill was hardly a first step. What this Bill does, as was said in another place, is to make clear as a legal liability the obligation which already exists on the Armed Forces. The operative words are "Armed Forces." We have not yet got to Civil Defence, because the Minister told us that that is under examination.
8.0 p.m.
Why cannot the hon. Gentleman be generous? We have been generous to him and have done our best to improve the Bill. We have been patient with him and helped him along the right road. We have promised all-party support—and that is worth something. All we ask him is to go a little further on the road on which he has haltingly and hesitatingly stumbled and not turn this down just because his brief says so. He should throw his brief in the basket and say: after all, what hon. Members on this side of the Committee are asking for is just commonsense. He would then show that he is capable of appreciating a simple argument put in a very simple way.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The hon. Member is very tempting, but he is tempting me to tell a lie. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am afraid I must refuse. However much it would please the hon. Member, I am sorry that I cannot call a spade a bulldozer; and in this case the Bill is the "Civil Defence (Armed Forces) Bill." To call it what he proposes would be a misnomer, and although I quite appreciate the point of view of the Opposition here, I ask them to accept that this is the correct title. They may not feel that the Government have produced the right Bill in the circumstances, but that is another question altogether. This is the correct name, and we should stick to the Bill as drafted.

Mr. Ede: I am bound to say that I am very disappointed at the second reply of the hon. Gentleman to the forthcoming speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). As the Title now


stands the ordinary person reading it would think that this is the "Civil Defence of the Armed Forces Bill." It is nothing of the sort. The persons involved in this Bill are not civilians but members of the Armed Forces. Surely in this matter the persons involved should provide the Title to the Bill.
There is more than the mere order of words involved. As we have insisted throughout, the great advance made in this Bill—although the Government themselves at one stage tried to belittle it —is the fact that the Armed Forces are being brought into Civil Defence as an essential part. I am not blaming the Home Secretary as this is not his Bill; he was not in that office when it was thought of. He is being left to defend a Bill which it was expected the great exponent of the defence of lost causes would be here to defend.
I do suggest to members of the Government that in this matter they still have a very hard battle to fight with people whom we shall not see here, but the reverberations of those discussions will be heard here and throughout the country. I am quite sure they know that if anything worth while is to be done in getting greater strength for Civil Defence it will have to be by making inroads into manpower which at present is allocated solely to the three Service Departments.
We have only a limited number of people in this country. One of our problems is that while we are still the greatest nation on earth we are very small numerically and have to carry tremendous burdens. The limited resources we have must be redeployed. We cannot expect to take many more men out of industry during an emergency to look after defence, whether it is Civil Defence or that which is provided by the three Services. The whole problem will be how this numerically small people can carry the great burden that our tradition and our present moral prestige in the world will compel us to carry, and manage to survive.
In support of this Amendment, I want to say to what I have said on every day on which this Bill has been before us. Our capacity to withstand, inside our own borders, heavy attack has never been tested. We have to go back a very long way to find a time when the ordinary population of this country was subjected

to what might be a critical attack by a foreign enemy. We had some of it during the last war. It is on that——

The Chairman: The Chairmanrose——

Mr. Ede: I am just coming to the point, Sir Charles—that our survival and the survival of the cause for which we stand will depend.
We shall have to get into Civil Defence men who in previous wars—certainly in the last two wars—would have been regarded as destined for one or other of the Armed Forces. Because of that—and this is the first time it has been said that a Service man can be used for this purpose—I think the words ought to be reversed in the way suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg).

Mr. Wigg: Are we not to have a reply from the Minister?

Major Lloyd-George: There is not much to be said upon this Amendment. The Title of the Bill really springs from the Civil Defence Act, 1948, and clears doubts, in the first Clause of the Bill, about the people who are to be available from the Services. Earlier, the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) was laying great stress on the need to call this a Civil Defence service. Therefore "Civil Defence" comes first and "Armed Forces" comes second. In this instance the Armed Forces are brought in, and we are laying additional Civil Defence responsibility on members of the Armed Forces. Therefore I think it is right to say that this is a Civil Defence (Armed Forces) Bill.
We fully appreciate the bigger question about which the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has spoken now and earlier. This is a limited Measure. It is bringing available Armed Forces to help Civil Defence and, therefore, I think "Civil Defence" should be the main words.

Mr. Wigg: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman, I am sure unwittingly, misrepresented what I said. What I said earlier was not at all inconsistent with what I have said on this Amendment. I was saying that it was necessary to remember that we are a civilian country. We have to rely on what has been the genius of our people to organise from the bottom up rather than, as the military


mind works, waiting for a directive from the top down.
I am sorry to be controversial at this late stage, but I cannot help thinking that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has not read the report of the proceedings in another place. For the first time, this Bill places a legal liability on the members of the Armed Forces. This Bill is concerned with the Armed Forces and, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has said, for the first time we are taking this step of bringing the Armed Forces into association with Civil Defence. I am very sorry that we are ending on this highly controversial note, but if the Minister cannot do better than that, and make a

real effort to see our point of view, I hope that my hon. Friends will go into the Division Lobby against the Government.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I am not convinced that either Title would be appropriate. This Bill contains neither provisions for the defence of the civil population nor the Armed Forces. In my opinion it would be better to let it go unnamed and allow the Bill to be anonymous.

Question put, "That the words 'Civil Defence (Armed Forces),' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 185; Noes, 168.

Division No 226.
AYES
[8.11 p.m.


Ailken, W. T.
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G Lloyd
Macleod, Rt. Hon. lain (Enfield, W.)


Alport, C. J. M.
Glover, D.
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)


Arbutnot, John
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Gough, C. F. H.
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Gower, H. R.
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Graham, Sir Fergus
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.


Baldwin, A. E.
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Medlicott, Brig. F.


Barter, Anthony
Grimond, J.
Mellor, Sir John


Barlow, Sir John
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Neave, Airey


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.


Bevins, J. R. (Texteth)
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Nugent, G. R. H.


Bishop, F. P.
Hay, John
Oakshott, H. D.


Black, C. W.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
O'Neill, Hon. Prelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Heath, Edward
Osborne, C.


Braine, B. R.
Higgs, J. M. C.
Page, R. G.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W H
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Perkins, Sir Robert


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Holland-Martin, C, J.
Powell, J. Enoch


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G T
Hollis, M. C.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Bullard, D. G.
Hope, Lord John
Raikes, Sir Victor


Burden, F. F. A.
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Ramsden, J. E.


Campbell, Sir David
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Redmayne, M.


Carr, Robert
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Renton, D. L. M.


Cary, Sir Robert
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Robertson, Sir David


Channon, H.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Russell, R. S.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Cole, Norman
Hylton-Foster, Sir H B. H.
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Colegate, W. A.
Hughes-Hallett, Vice-Admiral J
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.


Cenanl, Maj. Sir Roger
Iremonger, T. L.
Scott, R. Donald


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Johnson, Eric (Blaekley)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Crouch, R. F.
Joyson-Hicks, Hon. L. W
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Crowder, Sir John (Finehley)
Kaberry, D.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Deedes, W. F.
Kerr, H. W.
Spans, Rt. Hon. Sir P. (Kensington, S.)


Digby, S. Wingfield
Lambton, Viscount
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Stevens, Geoffrey


Dormer, Sir P. W.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Doughty, C. J. A.
Lindsay, Martin
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Storey, S.


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Summers, G. S.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold


Errington, Sir Erie
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Teeling, W.


Fell, A.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Finlay, Graeme
McCallum, Major D.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Fisher, Nigel
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Thorneycroft, Rt.Hn Peter (Monmouth)


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T D. (Pollok)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Tilney, John


Garner-Evans, E. H
Maclean, Fitzroy
Touche, Sir Gordon




Turner, H. F. L.
Wall, Major Patrick
Wills, G.


Tweedsmuir, Lady
Ward, Hon. George (Worcastsr)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Vane, W. M. F.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Wood, Hon. R.


Vaughafl-Morgan, J. K
Wellwood, W.



Vosper, D. F.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Mr. Robert Allan and


Walker-Smith, D. C.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Colonel Harrison.




NOES


Allan, Arthur (Bosworth
Hamilton, W. W
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Hannan, W.
Palmer, A. M F


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hardy, E. A.
Pargiter, G. A


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J
Hargreaves, A.
Parker, J.


Bence, C. R.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E)
Peyton, J. W. W


Bonn, Hon. Wedgwood
Hastings, S.
Peart, T. F.


Benson, G.
Hayman, F. H.
Popplewell, E.


Berwick, F.
Herbison, Miss M
Porter, G.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hobson, C. R.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Blackburn, F.
Holman, P.
Proctor, W. T.


Blenkinsop, A
Houghton, Douglas
Rankin, John


Boardman, H.
Hoy, J. H.
Reeves, J.


Bowden, H. W.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Brockway, A. F.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Roberls, Albert (Normanton)


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Burke, W. A.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Ross, William


Burton, Miss F. E.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Short, E. W.


Carmichael, J.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Champion, A J.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Chapman, W. D
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Chetwynd, G. R
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Simmons, c. J. (Brierley Hill)


Clunie, J.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech
Skeffington, A. M.


Collick, P. H
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Collins, V. J.
Keenan, W.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S)


Corbel, Mrs. Freda
Kenyon, C,
Snow, J. w.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Key, Rt Hon. C W
Sorenson, R. W


Dames, p.
King, Dr. H. M.
Sparks, J. A.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Lawson, G. M.
Steele, T.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Sylvester, G. O.


Deer, G.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Delargy, H. J.
MacColl, J. E.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Dodds, N. N.
Mclnnes, J.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Timmons, J.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
McLeavy, F.
Viant, S. P.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Warbey, W N


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E)
Weitzman, D.


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Fernyhough, E.
Manuel, A. C.
West, D. G.


Fienburgh, W.
Marquand, Rt. Hon H A
Wheeldon, W. E.


Finch, H. J.
Mayhew, C. P.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E)
Messer, Sir F
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W


Foot, M. M.
Mikardo, Ian
Wigg, George


Forman, J. C.
Mitchtson, G. R
Wilkins, W. A


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Monslow, W.
Willey, F. T.


Freeman, John (Watford)
Moody, A. S.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Gibson, C. W.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)


Gooch, E. G.
Morley, R.
Willis, E G.


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightsirle)


Grey, C. F.
Mulley, F. W.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Oldfield, W. H
Yates, V F.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Oliver, G. H.



Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Oswald, T.
TELLERS FOR THK NOES:


Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Padley, W E
Mr. Holmes and Mr. Wa'lar


Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause.—(DUTIES OF ARMED FORCES TO INCLUDE CIVIL DEFENCE AND TRAINING THEREFOR.)

It is hereby declared that the duties which members of the armed forces of the Crown may be called upon to undertake as members of those forces include civil defence and the

undergoing of training therein, and nothing in the provisions of this Act shall be construed as limiting the generality of this section.—[Mr. de Freitas.]

Brought up, and read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered Tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 158.]

ROADS (TRAFFIC CONGESTION)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Colonel J. H. Harrison.]

8.20 p.m.

Mr. Martin Lindsay: I make no apology for raising this important subject once again, because everybody must know that the estimated increase in the number of road vehicles over the next few years will cause fantastic chaos unless there is a positive and constructive Government plan, and one of sufficient imagination and magnitude to deal with this rapidly growing problem.
Before the war there were 3,150,000 road vehicles. Today there are nearly 5½ million. In other words, road traffic has increased by approximately 75 per cent. in 15 years. Yet during that time we have built no new roads to take the almost 2½ million extra cars and lorries. The position will get worse, as another 250,000 vehicles appear on the road every year. The problem is nothing less than desperate.
Except over very many years we cannot do all we would wish to do. We know from experience that the preparatory work, such as planning and acquisition of land, takes at least two years before any policy decision can even begin to show results. What is to happen in the next two years? In that period the density of traffic will have increased by nearly 10 per cent., another 10,000 people will have been killed upon the roads and about 400,000 will have been injured, and the appalling waste of man-hours, fuel, and vehicle life will continue, with the consequent unnecessarily high cost of road transport which is, of course, reflected in the cost of living and in our export prices.
I am not suggesting that any Government are to blame for the past neglect. I am sure that all hon. Members will agree that it would have been very difficult indeed to have diverted more of our resources to road development in the immediate post-war years. But, in the past year or two, we have surely begun to enter into a new era of national prosperity, with a national income which is continuing to increase.
No one is keener than I am about Government economy in order to reduce taxation, but I believe that economies on road expenditure are false economies. We know that the cost of the road improvements needed would be absolutely astronomical, but today we have read in the newspapers a forecast that before long the Government intend to embark on a great acceleration of the road programme at a much increased level of expenditure.
I hope that this forecast will prove true, because it is quite obvious to anyone that the present proposed increase in the Exchequer expenditure to £50 million in the next three years together, and about £14 million or £15 million a year thereafter is a very long way indeed below what is necessary. It does not even begin to measure up to the problem with which we shall soon be faced.
I am convinced that this problem must be tackled with the same vigour and imagination with which this Government has tackled the housing problem—and with an even greater degree of priority. We know that the difficulties arise not from lack of labour or materials but of finance. In every successive debate on this subject, speakers in all parts of the House have agreed that the necessary expenditure cannot be financed from current revenue.
We must either have a road loan, or the road work on the scale necessary must be treated on a capital basis and paid for largely by posterity. I cannot see any objection to that, because it would provide a capital asset of permanent value. We have as yet had no adequate explanation from the Treasury as to why such a procedure is not possible.
For my part, I believe that very large sums spent on the roads would pay dividends. The estimated cost of road accidents alone, including loss of earning capacity and the throwing of dependants upon public funds, is £150 million a year. All responsible authorities agree that this appalling loss could be cut down if we had new and better roads.
Seventy per cent. of all goods traffic is carried on our road system. We are told that its cost would be reduced by a very large amount—we have had estimates of 30 per cent.—with efficient


modern roads. The cost of road transport of both the raw material and the finished product enters into the price of every single thing we buy at home, and into the price of all the exports we send abroad.
It is, therefore, no wonder that both the Federation of British Industries and the Trades Union Congress have together agreed that the greatest single contribution to greater productivity would be a vastly improved road system. We can well understand the expression of opinion of Sir Harry Pilkington, speaking as Chairman of the Federation of British Industries, when he said that, given the choice, industry would much rather have increased expenditure upon the roads than a corresponding reduction in taxation.
The completion during the next three years of those listed individual projects which were announced on 8th December last year by the then Minister of Transport will be very welcome, but we must realise that these projects will remove only a few of the bottlenecks from a few of our out-of-date main roads. We require in the provinces today modern highways with dual carriageways and flyovers in all the principal directions, such as the present A.1 to the North-East and to Scotland, from London to Birmingham and to the North-West, from London to South Wales, and so on. When shall we even begin to face up to requirements such as these?
I should like to say a word or two about London, which is not only the capital of the Commonwealth but the biggest city in the world. Conditions in London today are already quite chaotic in certain places at certain times. What they will be in a year or two, with the extra road traffic, almost defies imagination. We have proposals under consideration for three large underground car parks, but much more is required; to give just one example, bridges or tunnels at the principal bottlenecks such as occur where the exits from London northwards have to cross the North Circular Road, and also at Hyde Park Corner.
I have felt for a long time that the Ministry of Transport should take a great deal more interest in these matters than it does. Hon. Members who drive in London will recollect that only a few years ago the Minister of Works made a

double-sized exit at the western entry into Hyde Park at Kensington Gore. Before then, only one vehicle could enter at a time. The gates have now been widened, and two cars can go in abreast and two can come out abreast.
I asked the Minister of Transport why the same arrangement could not be made at Hyde Park Corner where, as hon. Members will know, only one vehicle can enter and one vehicle can pass out of Hyde Park at the same time. The Minister's answer was that there is a long-term scheme for improving Hyde Park Corner. Why should we wait three, five or seven years before this scheme is put into effect?
Why cannot that entrance to Hyde Park Corner be immediately doubled in size, so that two cars can pass in and two cars can go out at the same time? To my mind, that ridiculous reply is typical of the attitude of the Ministry of Transport to this problem. The position about London is that the L.C.C. has a modest 10-year programme of road development, the cost of which is no more than £4 million a year which, in relation to this problem, is a very small expenditure indeed. But even this is awaiting Ministerial sanction.
Whatever is decided upon in any one financial year takes years to fructify. What is going to happen when more and more cars come on the roads every year, while we are waiting for these major developments to get under way? As the traffic density becomes greater each year, I believe that we shall have to give increasing consideration to temporary restrictive measures, however repugnant they may be, such as increased restrictions on private parking and upon new entrants into the road haulage industry, compulsory staggered hours of work in the big cities and so on, although these palliatives, imposing greater restrictions upon vehicles and drivers, will redound only to the disadvantage of the great trade and industrial centres which very largely rely upon road transport for their existence.
But there is one restriction which everyone would welcome immediately, namely, a restriction upon the carriage by road of outsized objects such as steam rollers, locomotives, liner funnels and large launches, which are only too familiar objects in these days. They are carried


upon trailers escorted by platoons of police upon our main roads, and they hold up queues of vehicles behind them. Goods of this nature should be forced to return immediately to the railways.
The problem of traffic congestion is becoming increasingly grave. In the interest of industrial prosperity, public wellbeing and safety, the nation must have modern roadways, free from terrible bottlenecks. I seems to me that far too much time has been lost, and that an entirely new approach to the problem is necessary. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary may have some encouraging news to give us upon this subject tonight.

8.36 p.m.

Mr. James Hudson: The hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. M. Lindsay) may count himself fortunate in that, quite unexpectedly, a little extra Parliamentary time can be devoted to the very important matter which he raises. It is a coincidence that during Question time today I was pressing upon the Leader of the House the necessity for allowing more time for the discussion of a kindred matter. I had no realisation that Providence or some such force would come to our aid and give us this unexpected extra time. We ought to use it to the best advantage.
Although I agree with most of the contentions of the hon. Member for Solihull, I feel that there was an air of unreality about much of his speech. This applied, for example, to his demand that we should ignore the question of cost because road improvements are so very important. It is not from his party or its conferences that we have been shown very much willingness to drive the Chancellor of the Exchequer into incurring expenditures which will involve higher taxation. I agree that higher taxation is involved, and in view of the many things which need to be done to provide a proper road system it will amount to a considerable burden, made no less by very serious and continuing neglect during the past few years.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): Questions of taxation involve legislation, and are not in order on the Adjournment.

Mr. Hudson: I thought that on the Adjournment one was fairly free to discuss such matters, although I was aware

of the rule to which you have called my attention, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
I am not suggesting there should be now any particular legislation or taxation. I am merely saying that if there were to be a tremendous road programme of the sort for which the hon. Gentleman has pleaded it would involve expenditure that would have to be met either by taxation or by some other means. However, as I may not go any further into that matter, I will leave it there.
I thought the hon. Gentleman was congratulatory to his own side of the House in suggesting that the Government should do about a road programme what they have already proved they can do about the housing programme. Much of the housing programme is in a state of suspense. It was a programme that should have provided us, they said, with 300,000 houses a year, but the number of houses being provided for those most needing them, who can afford only to pay rent, is down to a vastly lower number than 300,000.
If there is to be a great road programme in addition to the programme for house building and for the building of schools and hospitals, all of which need to be very carefully considered, and all of which have their claim to make on the money available, I doubt whether we shall get very much further with either the road programme or the housing programme while the present Government are in office, despite the enthusiasm with which the hon. Gentleman has spoken about a first-class road programme.
Although I utter those words of warning about the difficulties in the way, I agree that a road programme on a vastly bigger scale than any the Government have yet suggested will be necessary if drastic curtailments of the right to use the roads as they are are not to be considered. We may expect an increase in the delivery of new motor cars in the next few years. The motor industry of this country will not go on for ever enjoying its present rate of exports. It has been encouraged to believe that it will be able to put on the roads in the next few years a great many more vehicles. It was argued in the early days of the export drive that the development by special means of the export trade in cars would so increase productive capacity that the production of motor cars would become


so much greater numerically and so much cheaper that eventually a great many more cars could be sold in this country as well. So we may expect, as the hon. Gentleman inferred, that in the next few years there will be a tremendous increase in the number of motors of all kinds.
I was pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman suggest that special articles of commerce now carried on heavy vehicles on the roads ought to be sent by rail, by sea or by canal. I agree that that problem ought to be tackled at once. However, because of the Government's policy of "setting the people free" to use road transport pretty much as they like, we are now far less able to integrate road traffic with rail traffic than we were a short time ago. We have produced a situation, for which we in this House are responsible, that is so serious that either there must be a considerable extension of the road servicing and building programme or there must be a very great curtailment of the right of the people to use the roads.
Perhaps I may tell the House of a journey which I regularly make from the House to my constituency. I pass over the cross-roads which have been mentioned so often in the House on behalf of people who have been greatly inconvenienced by the delays there—the crossing at Park Royal, where the North Circular Road runs across Western Avenue. The other night I went to my constituency about the time when people were travelling from their offices to their homes. The traffic was enormous.
I always have to wait at this crossing, but on this occasion the delay was up to three-quarters-of-an-hour. The queue beginning on the London side of Park Royal, with two cars abreast along the Western Avenue, was nearly a mile in length. It consisted of industrial vehicles, private cars and buses—bus after bus waiting in the queue. Sometimes, in the queue running parallel, I would see a bus crowded with working people, some of them standing, making their way home after a weary day at work. If they waited as long as I waited in my car, they spent an additional three-quarters-of-an-hour in passing through that one centre.
For years proposals have been made to deal with the problem. The Ealing Council has strongly urged the Minister

of Transport that this crossing cannot remain in its present state. There are natural features—the tilt of the roads and the hills—which might make it easier to construct a fly-over there than in most places, but in any case, whether it is easy or difficult, the money which will have to be spent to put the matter right is very considerable. The amount of time and money which is being lost now, and the loss of the opportunities of good living for our ordinary working people, who have to wait there for long periods night after night, is also considerable. I have to wait there on the one or two nights when I make that journey, but these working people have that inconvenience every night.
As a private motorist, I could not object if an edict were issued that, in the interests of people who have to go from their homes to work in the morning, and who later want to get home again, I must not drive my motor car in that area. I could not object if it were said, "This problem is insoluble, and you must stop driving your car in this area You cannot come into London. You must stop in some parking place far out of London and finish the journey by bus, as other people do, sharing the inconveniences which you are helping to increase by driving a motor car containing only one person."
The driving public of this country must face it. These traffic problems exist in practically every town of the country. Think of Doncaster: who has not driven along the Great North Road on a Saturday in the summer, or been anywhere near Doncaster at the time of the races, and seen queues of cars four miles long? It takes one-and-a-half hours and sometimes two hours to get through Doncaster. Having got through it there are other bad places still to be negotiated. This problem is of such a character that there are only two things possible, either curtailment of the present extent of usage of the road—let all motorists face it—or the very considerable expansion for which we are pleading.
You would not expect me to speak in a matter of this sort, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, without raising my King Charles's head. I propose, with your permission—and I am not suggesting new legislation—to ask the House to look to the personal behaviour of those who use the roads and who, as a result of that behaviour, are intensifying the problem


which we are discussing. I am not merely referring to the question of drink, although I say that it does affect road traffic problems by reason of the carelessness that is bound to follow from indulgence in drink.
I say that the need for greater care in every way, need for greater efficiency, need for those who have cars to subject themselves and their cars to regular tests, so as to help us solve the road problem which confronts us today, has become greater than ever. The taxi driver or the owner of a taxi has his vehicle subjected to the most meticulous inspection as to its safety on the roads, and questions are regularly asked concerning the ability of the man who drives it.
I agree that ought to be so. But it also ought to be so for the driver-motorist. The car with defective brakes is a serious menace on the roads; and the evil that is bound to follow from the large-scale trade in second-hand cars, sometimes good but often very much less than good, can only be met by a very much better system of inspection, organised by the Ministry of Transport, than anything which exists at the present time.
We all know, following the most definite medical and scientific investigations which cannot be gainsaid, that the taking of alcohol slows down the reactions of a person driving a car. Yet we know perfectly well that in every village and town there are public houses which advertise their capacity to supply the passing motorist with alcohol. That is a situation which should not be connived at very much longer. There should be re-assessment in this House and by the Government of this problem.
I am very pleased indeed—although discussion of this matter must be left for Monday—that in the new Highway Code a most admirable statement is made in large type and printed in red letters—the sort of ink that ought to be used to mark the special danger involved—pointing out that among five special things to be remembered is that alcohol, even in quite small amounts, make one less safe on the roads.
Having discovered that, and knowing that in every town and village people are engaged in pressing the sale of

alcohol on the attention of motorists, what does this House propose to do about it? I cannot answer the question, because that, too, would involve legislation; but I can ask the question, what does the Minister of Transport propose to do about it? The new Highway Code is a good piece of work. I should have said that on Monday, but I am saying this foreword now. I agree with the Minister of Transport that the question of alcohol must be regarded as one of the most serious difficulties that we now face.
I know what will be thrown up against me. I shall be told that the statistics show that only 1 per cent. of the accidents are due to drunkenness or to a car being driven by a driver while under the influence of drink. This collection of the statistics is all wrong. We are shown in another place that an accident is caused by a head-on crash. Many a head-on crash takes place because a man suddenly cuts out of the queue and tries to get further along the queue and meets the oncoming traffic; that is the head-on crash. If the driver's sense of care has been diminished by alcohol, that is never shown in the statistics.
A proportion of the head-on crashes, the dangerous driving round bends and the cutting in, is mixed up with the question of alcohol. I suggest to the Ministry that there is need for a much more careful reassessment of the collection of statistics about driving and accidents if we are really to face up to this evil. At any rate, I can say this much for the Ministry of Transport: surely it suspects the evil to be measured by more than 1 per cent. of the accidents when it puts in the Highway Code as one of the five special dangers the use of alcohol by motorists.
Unless that issue is faced more seriously, surely not much heed will be paid to our appeal by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when it comes to asking him for the millions and millions that must be provided for an effective road programme. If we can save some of the millions by more careful driving on the roads and by more careful consideration of the cars used on the roads, at least we ought to do it. I hope that, in continuing this debate, Members will keep in mind not merely the demand for money for an extended road programme,


but also the demand for care by which, if it were exercised, much of the money might be saved.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Thompson: I share the pleasure which, I know, the whole House feels that my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. M. Lindsay) has been fortunate enough to select this subject for the Adjournment debate tonight, and I was very pleased that the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) should comment on the fact that we have a lot more time tonight in which to discuss it. As the hon. Member's speech gathered in length and also in breadth, however, I began to think that perhaps he had used the wrong pronoun. If the hon. Member is not careful, speeches of that length will gain for him the reputation of volubility of a Minister of the Crown, and I know that he would avoid that if he possibly could.
I think that no harm would be done if the House now turned its mind from the dangers of alcohol, which arouse alarm and concern with many of us, including the hon. Member for Ealing, North to this question of the congestion that we are all experiencing on the roads as we go about our daily business.
It seems to be reducing the question to proportions altogether too simple to say that congestion is arising because there are too many vehicles on the roads. Of course that is the reason, but to, blame our congestion today on the fact that we are increasing the number of vehicles used, and solely to that fact, is to blind ourselves to the fact that there have been considerable road improvements over the last 20 or 30 years in an attempt to keep pace with the demand that increasing traffic makes. I have noticed, travelling about the roads quite a lot, that the real cause of congestion—leaving aside the traffic block congestion type of problem in the centre of a city—arises where a main trunk road has been partially widened but is obstructed, perhaps by a public house, at the entrance to, or the point of departure from a city.
I have the honour to represent a part of the great city of Liverpool, which stands at the mouth of the Mersey. Into Liverpool flows a great stream of traffic from the whole of industrial Lancashire and a great part of industrial Yorkshire. Much of our traffic, of course, is headed

for the Liverpool docks, where it about turns and heads out of the city again. But much of it is heading across the river, and in order to meet obligations that resulted from this great flood attempting to cross into North Wales and perhaps into the south, we built the Mersey tunnel, one of the greatest civic enterprises, I suppose, that stand to the credit of this country, perhaps in the world. It is a really wonderful engineering achievement which has made a really wonderful contribution to the solution of the traffic problem.
At about the same time was built the East Lancashire Road running from the city of Liverpool to the city of Salford carrying much of this traffic from the Lancashire industrial areas to the Liverpool and Birkenhead docks. But between the mouth of the Mersey Tunnel in Liverpool and the East Lancashire Road where it comes into the city is a string of small, inconvenient winding and very uncertain roads stretching perhaps, if my memory serves me, about three miles. So the traffic, which travels at high speed from Salford to the Liverpool city boundary, threads its way along these inconvenient and not very well marked streets and so loses much of the speed it had gained.
The same is true at the Salford end. If anyone wants to go from Liverpool to Manchester—I find it difficult to see why they should—and places beyond Manchester, they make the journey from the Liverpool boundary to the boundary of Salford at a great pace, and then they run into the same tortuous problem of small streets and insufficient carriageways. So the first thing to which the Ministry of Transport should put their minds is not building great new roads with magnificent fly-overs and 60 milean-hour speed-limits and that kind of thing, but to solving the problem of how our present trunk roads do their jobs at the points where they begin and end after crossing large areas of country.
Secondly, it seems the Ministry of Transport should be examining the problem in this way. They have been asking how many vehicles go past a given point in a given period of time. I now imagine they must have a complete confusion of statistics on the point, because a Doncaster race meeting on one day will produce a completely different set of figures


on the same road at a different time of the year. In my constituency on a day of an Aintree race meeting, or in the area of Everton Football Club when Everton are at home demonstrating their science to other leaders of the First Division, a different picture of the traffic condition will be seen than what generally prevails.
What the Ministry of Transport ought to be doing now is studying what I might call for the want of a better word, the "tides" of traffic. Where do the tides of traffic in any area or on any road regularly flow? I have been mentioning the regular flow of traffic into or out of the bottleneck of the city of Liverpool. My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull, who raised this matter, has the privilege of representing a part of the city of Birmingham. There is not an hon. Member in this House who has driven a motor car anywhere near Birmingham who does not view with the utmost horror the prospect that he might get landed in the central streets of Birmingham. It has been said that the only way to find a way out of Birmingham once one has found one's way in is to notch the posts along the route on entering the city and by that way find one's way out.
The tide of traffic has got to be studied by the Ministry and the convenience of this great volume of traffic met as far as is possible. I was concerned when my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Ealing, North both ended by talking about the problem of London traffic. We know the problems of London traffic are very considerable and bear very hard on all those who have to live with them. But the Ministry of Transport should not be bulldozed, dragooned, driven or bullied into believing that London is the whole of the British Isles. We have the same problems in Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds, Doncaster, Sunderland and elsewhere throughout the length and breadth of the land.
I do not think there is much to be said for the solution offered by the hon. Member for Ealing, North to drive everybody off the roads because there is no room for them. I am sure the solution is that proper roads should be built wherever there is need without allowing ourselves to be overborne by the threat of this great sprawling Metropolis, which

in my view has already had its fair share of what this country can afford.

9.7 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: I shall be extremely short. I usually talk about roads in remote parts of the country where there is not too much traffic but where the question is the ability of the few cars to travel on the roads that do exist. I just mention that in passing to keep the subject in the forefront.
I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. M. Lindsay) for raising this matter. He has made the main case which in any event must be well known to the Minister. He and the hon. Member for Walton (Mr. K. Thompson) mentioned the need for flyovers on main roads. The hon. Member for Walton stated that in his view what was needed was not so much the construction of new main roads but the improvement of bottlenecks on the existing main roads. I would imagine that the hon. Member for Solihull would agree with that, as I would, but what I doubt is whether that can be done without virtually constructing new roads.
I occasionally motor from London to the extreme north of Scotland, to Thurso in Caithness, and when I go through such places as Doncaster or Darlington on the one side or Lancashire on the other, I come more and more to the conclusion' that new roads will have to be driven through these industrial areas. Until that is done, if we clear bottlenecks in one place, they will occur somewhere else.
Will the Minister say something about the policy of his Ministry on fly-overs? I understand that a new road is to be constructed which will run parallel with Chiswick High Street and join with the Great West Road, but that it will not have a fly-over where it crosses the road over Hammersmith Bridge. If that is true, there will be the most appalling congestion in that area, which is already impassable during certain times of the day. It is of no use constructing main roads unless we make sure that traffic will flow and will not be snarled up every four or five miles by a bottleneck.
The trouble is where the money will come from. Much as we may sympathise


with the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson), if he has his way there will be less because, if we all give up drinking and smoking, the country will be reduced to penury. There has been talk of the possibility of tolls. I hope the Minister will say something about that point, because it may be the solution. If necessary, why not have a public corporation authorised to build and charge for some main roads? But if there is to be a charge for them, let us ensure that the money goes back to the roads and not into the bottomless purse of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. James H. Hoy: What about the Prime Minister becoming Chancellor of the Exchequer again?

Mr. Grimond: That is a hazard which we can now ignore. Road construction is inevitably expensive, but there are certain frills, like kerbs and the widths of the verges, which are sometimes included, which not only add to the expense but are wasteful of agricultural land. We must keep down construction to the point of utility white making the roads wide enough and rightly cambered. And we must ensure that they are used to the best advantage by the traffic.
On this point, is it impossible to use some of the more or less unused railway lines, such as certain branch lines? For instance, there is a line north of Inverness which could be turned into an autobahn. The hon. Member for Solihull spoke of palliatives until the road programme can get under way. I would go so far with him as to agree that something should be done to restrict traffic in London and other big cities. For instance, we might put a heavy tax on anyone, such as myself, who occasionally tries to drive a car in the centre of London without that being strictly necessary. I suppose the difficulty would be that many people would have to leave their cars outside London with nowhere to park them. However, I would not like the Minister to think that he can escape under a cloud of palliatives. Sooner or later he must tackle the roads question, because we cannot have an industrial country of this size with a totally inadequate and out of date road system to carry its goods. If the Minister is allowed to produce palliatives, such as restricting

the amount of traffic, we shall never get anything done.
The solution may be to charge the people who want to go on the roads more by way of tolls, and possibly to put a tax on unnecessary traffic in the centre of London. However it is done, I am certain that in the long run a radical reconstruction of the entire roads system must be carried out if our industry is not to labour for ever under an intolerable handicap.

9.14 p.m.

Mr. Paul Williams (Sunderland, South): I join with those who have already spoken in this debate in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. M. Lindsay) for raising a subject dealing with a 20th century covering of 17th century roads, because it seems to me that we have progressed in only one way, in the way we surface the roads rather than in their construction.
I would declare my ambition at this stage of the debate, which seems to be opposite to that of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson), of seeing every man who works in this country able to own a car of his own and drive that car safely on the roads of this country. I do not think that he can take these restrictions on the number of vehicles too far. I would rather see the roads of the country meet the needs of the country and of the working people.

Mr. J. Hudson: I was not opposed to that idea. I only said that the question of restriction would have to be faced unless the other things were done.

Mr. Williams: I am very pleased to hear that the hon. Member is 100 per cent. for the expansion of the road programme, for which this evening we are all trying to press.
I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull in saying that what is needed at the moment and in the near future is a national road campaign, a national road construction crusade and not, in the sense in which the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) referred to it, a series of palliatives. I would rather see the temporary palliatives left undone even at the expense of certain roads falling into a bad state of repair if, at the same time,


we had a major road construction programme linking the major centres of industry.
I divide the problem under three main headings—money, men and materials. On the money side, I hope to see some form of public corporation which could raise a loan, build the roads and carry out the maintenance. I am not in the slightest afraid of the possible imposition of tolls so as to get some return for that expenditure. The Mersey Tunnel has been mentioned. A number of us in the North-East, long before I came to this House, have been pressing for the construction of the Tyne Tunnel. That tunnel, linked with the Newcastle by-pass, would help in a great way to solve the problem of the road congestion which occurs in that heavily congested area surrounding the Tyne and the River Wear.
If the tunnel were built by that method, or if it were subscribed for and built locally and the initial loan repaid over 20 years, it would be a major contribution to solving some of the road traffic problems of the North-East. There is no reason why we should not think also in terms of diverting a certain percentage of Road Fund licence fees—let us be moderate and say at this stage only 25 per cent.—into a special road fund, so that there could be some certainty over the years of a definite amount being diverted into use on road construction.
Turning away from the financing of road programmes to the question of materials and men, we have heard in various debates such as this that neither the men nor the materials would be available for such a programme. Quite frankly, I do not believe that that can be true in a country in which in the last few years we have seen an increase in the building of houses factories and schools, in spite of what was said by the hon. Member for Ealing, North. The materials can be there if there is a long-term certainty and the right type of planning.
When one mentions planning in relation to roads, I feel that always at the back of the mind of the Ministry of Transport is the word "unemployment." I raised this matter in a slight form in an earlier debate, and I cannot speak now without mentioning it again. If at the back of the mind of the Ministry of Transport is

this idea that road building is a problem to be solved when there is unemployment, I would say to the Ministry that first of all we cannot calculate, and neither party calculates, on there being unemployment. Even if that were to be an assumption, which none of us would make, it is not the sort of solution we need for this problem, which is the problem of a prosperous nation, not a nation of unemployment. It is a problem that needs solution if we are to meet the problems that face a prosperous industry.
References have been made to by-passes and fly-overs and other adaptations of modern road development. I understand that certain towns and cities are afraid of by-passes. The traders and local industrialists and shopkeepers say from time to time, "If we have a by-pass round this town, it will take custom away from our shops and people away from our town. I just do not believe it.
Recently, when visiting the United States of America, I saw on the outskirts of Los Angeles, for example, by-passes that had been driven round or express ways that had been built through a number of small towns. The net result was not to divert business from those towns but to make it easier for people living around them to go there and conduct their shopping and buying operations. A by-pass may help a town by facilitating its trade. I suggest to those who are afraid of by-passes that they are boxing with shadows and attacking the wrong opponent on this issue.
Probably all of us have heard in the last few days of the discussions taking place on the width of vehicles. It is suggested that the width of vehicles allowed to travel on the roads has become too great. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary if it is not a fact that even in the last few days there has been a suggestion that even wider lorries should travel on the roads. I must admit that I have only heard a rumour to that effect, but if it is true it is a regrettable development. There should be no further expansion of the width of vehicles allowed to travel on the roads.
One point made by the hon. Member for Ealing, North which I should like to take up is the question of second-hand cars. I believe that in music-hall jokes the trade ranks second only to mothers-in-law. During and since the war the


second-hand car dealer has been the butt of a great many jokes, some justified perhaps, but a great many unjustified. One thing which is quite certain is that the standard of cars which come on the roads through second-hand car dealers is not always quite what one would expect, to put it at its lowest. I should have thought there was a very strong case for an inspection of all cars coming on the roads in second-hand condition. That is something which is done in a number of other countries. There has to be a Government certificate that a car meets a certain standard of road worthiness before it can appear on the roads again after it has changed hands.
In referring to some of the smaller questions about traffic congestion within towns, I suggest that lack of road courtesy is regrettable. The way in which those who drive cars behave and the way in which we often approach traffic lights is regrettable. There is the idea that we must just get across and beat the amber. I suggest to the Minister that it might be worth while conducting an experiment in certain limited areas to see what is the effect on the speed at which traffic can be kept moving in towns by changing the system of lighting at crossroads.
There should not be the "stop," "stop, caution," and then "go" and the reverse, "go," "caution" alone and "stop" but an attempt to have a lack of overlap in the lights so that both lines of traffic are stopped at one time and no one has the right to go. Again that is often done in other countries as an attempt to stop people beating the lights. How often have we seen others, or perhaps done it ourselves, going away when the lights are at "caution"? How much better it would be if they said "all stop" until the other line was at stop and then changed to "go" without any "stop caution." That is certainly something worth while attempting or testing. Another question is that of turning right at right-angle intersections. I know the unpopularity of saying, "No right turn," but if there are no right turns at right-angle intersections there would not be the hold-ups which one frequently sees in the middle of towns, where traffic turning right holds up everything coming on or everything which is behind.
If pedestrians crossing at traffic lights were controlled in the same way as

motorists are controlled, I believe that it would lead to a greater measure of safety both for pedestrians and motorists. I think that a matter worthy of consideration. In other countries, there are traffic lights for pedestrians which say, "Walk" or, "Do not walk."
To speed up traffic in the towns and to make for greater safety, there is a need for a greater amount of courtesy on the part of every motorist in the land. At present not enough courtesy is shown by motorists. There are too many attempts to get there five seconds before the other fellow. In 10 journeys that may be achieved, but in the eleventh a tragic accident may result.
I am sure that the Minister has a number of ideas for dealing with this problem of road congestion and road safety. I suggest that there is one way in which he can test the validity of any ideas which may exist at the Ministry of Transport or which may be expressed tonight. He should select one town or one largish area in the country in which to see how they work out. It is not within my right to give him the town of Sunderland, but if he wishes to do so, I am sure that the people of Sunderland would be happy to see this problem investigated there, or tested in a town such as Sunderland. I urge the Minister to consider trying out the suggestions made in such a "guinea pig" town, and as we are near the top of Division I, I am quite willing to offer him the champions of the season.

9.27 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. M. Lindsay) for raising this matter, and I am sorry that I left the Chamber as soon as he began to speak, but I had been sitting here all day during the debate on the Civil Defence (Armed Forces) Bill.
Like the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) I am willing to offer my constituency as a "guinea pig." I am willing to say that there is greater congestion in the streets of the city of Lincoln than in any other city of comparable size in the country. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Don-caster?"] I agree it is bad during the races but during the Lincolnshire Handicap period it is even worse in Lincoln.
I wish that I had brought with me the figures given recently in the local Press, but I had no idea that I should be able to intervene in this debate. Only a week ago, at the peak hour, the level crossings across the principal streets of Lincoln were closed for as long as half of that time. I quote from memory, but I seem to remember that on Monday, in a period of 26 minutes, the gates were closed for 13 minutes. That is an under-estimate of the amount of dislocation caused to traffic, because, with the starting and stopping of heavy vehicles, the time at which traffic is at a standstill, or a near-standstill, is even greater. The problem is gigantic.
The city of Lincoln is built in two parts, one uphill and the other down. Historically, we have the cathedral, the Close, and what is still part of the residential area and was once exclusively the residential area, on top of the hill. In the valley on the flat there is the industrial area. They are connected by two roads, and across those roads lie the railways—a perfect example of the unplanned industrial expansion of the last century when the railways came.
What are we to do about this congestion? As I say, it is unlike that in most other places because it is a problem of level crossings. I raised this matter in the House in March this year and in July, and I do so again tonight. So long as I am the Member for the city of Lincoln I shall never lose an opportunity of raising this issue and asking the Minister of Transport what he intends to do to help the city. I am not expecting him to deal with this point tonight, of course, because he could have no idea that I was to raise it. He was good enough to reply to an Adjournment debate which I raised in, I think, July, but I hope soon to pursue this attack again to find out what has been done.
It is calculated that in Roman times it took a Roman 13 or 14 days to get from Rome to London, travelling as fast as possible. It took the same time 1,800 years later. With the arrival of the railways it became a matter of a few days, and, with the advent of air travel, a matter of hours. Lincoln is a Roman city—Lindum Colonia. A Roman legionary in the camp on the hill could get down to and across the Witham to

the southern part of what is now the city more quickly 2,000 years ago than a man today, by bus or any other form of vehicle, could possibly do the journey.
In 2,000 years we have advanced absolutely nil in this regard. If one tried to do the journey now one would stand for most of the time gazing over the gates of the level crossing at the railway waggons. [An HON. MEMBER: "Roman regimentation."] I shall not develop that point of Roman regimentation—we are, fortunately, now a modern democratic city, with great wisdom at the polls, as hon. Members will appreciate.
It is not only a question of amenity, or of travelling from one part of the city to the other. We are a great engineering city. It has been well said that roads are the conveyor belts of industry, and if the conveyor belt is broken every few minutes industry suffers. If the Lincoln engineering industry suffers we all suffer, not only in Lincoln but in the whole country, because we are one of the leading heavy industrial towns, as hon. Members know so well—even though they do not say so as often as I do.
In warning the Parliamentary Secretary that I shall again return to the attack, I should like to agree with the hon. Member for Sunderland, South when he said that we have a great deal to learn from the toll system and the by-pass system of roads in the United States. We should make a study of them. I have been in every one of the United States, except one. I have not driven in them all, but I have been in 47 of the States. I must say that one of the material features in American life which has impressed me most has been their road system, and the fact that they are not frightened to have a system of tolls to finance their roads. I ask the Minister to look beyond these islands to see whether we cannot gain something from the experience of big countries like the United States.

9.35 p.m.

Mr. David Renton: The hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas), great long-distance runner that he is, must have a considerable contempt of motorists; and I do not wonder at it, because he must often find himself in the position of being able to overtake the motor traffic in his own constituency.


I can assure him that if he came to the old town of Huntingdon in my constituency, he would not have to put on very great pace in order to get through it quicker than the motor traffic.
I am sorry that, as I have been refuelling, I was not present when my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. M. Lindsay) opened this debate. We have had debates on traffic congestion several times a year each year since the war ended; and I am sorry to say that we are likely to continue having these debates several times a year for a number of years to come.
One of the first questions that we have to ask is whether this is a soluble problem wholly or in part? The obvious answer is that it is not likely to be solved wholly in our lifetime, because it is a bottomless pit. We can expect an ever-increasing number of motor cars of all kinds with every year that passes, so long as our economy goes as well as we wish it to go. Therefore, so far as congestion in the cities is concerned—and I am not only referring to London—we are faced with the problem that the more space we provide, the more cars we are likely to get as the years go by. But that must not deter us from doing all we can to reduce the problem.
In order to clear our minds, we should recognise that the problem of congestion in the cities and the problem of congestion on the open road are quite separate, and should be dealt with in separate ways. I will deal with them separately in my few remarks to the House. It seems to me that in London and in other large and small towns we must, first of all, get over this difficulty about parking.
Recently the Embankment from here to Blackfriars was immensely improved, at considerable cost. The tramlines were taken up. A dual carriageway was made, with a nice thin strip of pavement and grass down the middle, and it looked as though it was going to be a pretty good way of getting from east to west quickly across a congested part of London. But within a very few weeks of the completion of that work, there was a row of cars parked, with official permission, on each side of the carriageway for a great part of the length, and at times practically the whole of the length.
It is obvious that, if we wish the best possible use to be made of our streets, we have got to reduce the number of cars parked on them. We can only do that by providing car parks; and in doing this, we can go either underground or above ground. I feel that underground car parks are limited in the space which they can provide. There are all sorts of problems involved. I think, however, that we should make such use of them as we can, but the provision of a few underground car parks in London will not do more than scratch at the problem.
What we have to do in London and in other large towns is to plan and prepare for very large car parks above ground. When I say large, I do not mean large in superficial ground area. I refer to the holding capacity. We have got to go up into the sky a bit, if we are going to get car parks which will help to solve the problem. It may well be that the Ministry of Transport, in conjunction with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, has considered the important question whether town development plans have provided for space for car parks of that character in the years to come. Perhaps the Joint Parliamentary Secretary can say whether that is a matter which has engaged the attention of the Ministry.
I am sorry that I have not given the hon. Gentleman notice of this and other points which I am raising. We have been unexpectedly lucky this evening in having this amount of time for debate, and I have not had time to give him notice. I feel very sorry for him in having to reply to so many points so unexpectedly; but I know that he will do his best to answer them, as he always does.
Important road improvements in large cities are likely to cause so much expense and inconvenience, because of old buildings having to be pulled down, that we cannot expect to see them carried out in a short time. They cannot even be made in the City of London, with its vacant bombed sites, because even those are not so conveniently sited as to enable suitable through roads to be made. Therefore we must consider the question of parking, first and foremost.
I do not want to go into detail about the amount of money involved, but I would ask the House to keep an open mind about the use of parking meters.


Experience across the Atlantic and elsewhere has shown that the use of these meters has been an extremely convenient way of raising cash quite quickly for building other kinds of car parks. The motorists of this country—and I speak as a member of a motoring organisation—would be very narrow-minded indeed if they shut their minds to that possibility.
Although major improvements may take a long time, there are many small ones which could be made quickly and at very small cost. The width of some pavements could be reduced. I do not think that pedestrians would resent it, because those pavements are quite unnecessarily wide, and in the interests of pedestrians as well as of the free flow of traffic, it would be far better to give a few extra feet to the carriageway.
Another suggestion is that pavements and their corners should be re-sited so as not to obstruct traffic. This is a matter of detail, but I think that every large city should be surveyed by the highway authority and the chief constable in order to see if awkward corners could be cut off. An immediate easement of the flow of traffic can sometimes be made by merely reducing the size of a traffic island.
On the open road we should try to get rid of the bottlenecks, which are caused by the 20 miles-an-hour speed limit, which is imposed in the case of large vehicles. It is so frequently not observed; but when it is—no doubt by zealous drivers doing their duty—bottlenecks are nearly always caused, and that is against the interests of road safety and the free flow of traffic. I cannot see that any increased danger would result from making legal and general what is already the practice in a great percentage of cases.
By-passes should have a very high degree of priority in general road improvements. They can do much to ease the flow of traffic. Road schemes which, in some cases, as at Alconbury Hill, in my own constituency, were started before the war and are simply waiting completion, should be completed at an early date. I can only hope that Her Majesty's Government will see that these will be completed as soon as possible, and as the economic condition of the country allows.
This debate has produced one surprise for me. I never thought that I should hear the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), or anyone who professes to be a Liberal, suggesting that we should restrict freedom on the roads or anywhere else by higher taxation.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. William Keenan: I shall try to be brief, because others want to take part in the debate. Unlike the hon. and learned Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton), I was in the House to hear the opening of the debate by the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. M. Lindsay), who was fortunate in the ballot, and I congratulate him on having been so fortunate, and on having chosen this subject for debate, and also on the very important points he made. He spoke of road development and restriction of road use, and recognised the potential dangers. It is, perhaps, significant that none of the other Members who have spoken but who did not hear him has referred to the danger on the roads. The hon. Member for Solihull did, and it is to his credit that he did. He even visualised the possibility that, with conditions as they are, there may be 5,000 deaths on the roads per year.
I do not want to go into these matters of road safety in the way I usually do if I ever have an opportunity. The reason why I usually do so is, as the hon. Member for Solihull knows, that I feel very strongly about that subject. Tonight I want to deal rather with one or two of the questions that have emerged from the debate. The hon. Member for Solihull brought up one as worthy of consideration by the Minister, and it was also referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Huntingdon. That was the question of the carriage of heavy goods on heavy vehicles on the roads.
The hon. Member for Solihull wanted them to travel rather faster than they do. While it is true that vehicles limited to 20 miles an hour do travel very often at 30, the fact remains that the faster those heavy loads go on the roads the greater is the risk. I am not certain that the roads they go upon are meant for heavy weights of that kind to be carried at increased speed. That is a matter for the road users, the owners of the goods and


the vehicles and the drivers of the vehicles and the public authorities to settle between them, as it will have to be settled before there is any agreement that the 20 miles an hour limit should be raised to 30 miles an hour. It has been under discussion for years.
The outstanding fact is that heavy loads on the roads delay traffic all the time, and they also cut the roads up. The amount of this heavy traffic can be imagined from consideration of the fact that 70 per cent, of our commerce is on the roads. That is far too great a percentage of it, especially when we remember, as I wish hon. Members opposite would, that we have the finest rail system in the world.
Hon. Members opposite have been complaining tonight about the congestion on the roads, the difficulties of getting the traffic moving, the delays and the expense involved. I ask them, what have they been doing in the last twelve months? They have been doing their best to clutter up the roads by taking from the railway system so much of the goods traffic.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Mr. Geoffrey Wilson (Truro) rose——

Mr. Keenan: I have only got a few minutes, and I said I wanted to be brief, and I am not going to give way to an hon. Member who has only just come in.

Mr. Wilson: I have not just come in. I have been here all the time.

Mr. Keenan: The hon. Member has not been in.

Mr. Wilson: I have been in all the time.

Mr. Keenan: I should have given way to the hon. Member if he had been here.

Mr. Wilson: It is not true. I have been here all the time.

Mr. Keenan: The railroads could take, as they took in the past, much of the traffic which is now being put back on the roads. There is no doubt whatever that we have the best railroad system. The attempt we made to integrate road haulage with the railways has been undone by the Government supported by hon. Gentlemen opposite. I agree with the hon. Member for Solihull about that 70 per cent. I should say that nearly half of that should be diverted back to the railways.
What would be the position if it were? It would relieve the highways from town to town, the arterial roads, and the roads in the centres of the towns and in the industrial areas of the vehicles that are carrying goods. It would relieve the roads of thousands of vehicles per day, and so would facilitate the flow of traffic. The Government must look into the problem and see to what extent we can take from the roads traffic which has no right to be there, sending it by rail and relieving the congestion on the roads.
Of course, that alone will not solve the road problem. I cannot agree with the motorists of this country who, through their associations and federations, claim that all they pay into the Exchequer should be used for road development. We might as well make the same claim for every branch of taxpayer and say that all we put into the Exchequer should be used for our benefit and not for the general good of the country. The motorists came long after the roads. The roads were here before them. What contribution did they make to the original building of the roads, which was done long before we had motor cars?
I agree that something must be done about London's traffic problem. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) that until the roads are adequate we may have to restrict the volume of traffic. In fact, I made such a suggestion 12 months ago. What is London's traffic problem? Largely, it is that there are too many private vehicles, each carrying only one or two people; there are probably 10 private cars to every bus or lorry. I do not know whether a toll or extra taxation might limit the traffic, but if we do not take some steps to limit it we are bound to have the congestion which has worried everybody for years.
I agree, too, that parking is a serious problem. My own observations in Liverpool lead me to believe that a lot of the congestion in our cities is caused by cars being parked in the roads. Many of those who park their cars in our cities and towns are friends of the local councillors and so nothing is done to make the watch committee do its job. It is only in the last year or two that we have had city councils tackling this question, and even now much more could be done. City councils must tackle the problem of


people who park their cars in front of their business houses, on the main roads, for the whole day.
I am grateful for the opportunity tonight to speak on the question of the road worthiness of vehicles and the conduct of drivers—a point which I did not discuss on the previous occasion. Some hon. Members look upon me as an anti-motorist, and if motorists are to continue to kill people at the present rate, I shall continue to be an anti-motorist. I blame the motorist, because the pedestrian does not knock the motorist down; it is the motorist who knocks the pedestrian down. It is all very well for hon. Members to speak about travelling at only five or ten miles an hour. If the cars were stopped they would not knock anybody down.
It is the present tendency to speed which causes me to resist all these efforts for road improvements. If we make carpet-like surfaces, the faster we shall make the traffic and the greater will be the danger to people.
The hon. and learned Member for Huntingdon mentioned a factor which causes me concern and about which I am questioning the Ministry of Transport. It is the question of zebra crossings. I am puzzled by the disappearance of zebra crossings. In the town in which I live, near Liverpool, there is one point from which I have to walk nearly half-a-mile to find a crossing on the main road. Where does the pedestrian cross in safety? In Liverpool I was told yesterday that there are 130-odd crossings in the city, which has a population of 800,000. I think that roadworthiness is an important factor, but no attempt is made to test vehicles.
I am sorry that I shall not be able to be here on Monday, because of other business, to hear the debate on the Highway Code, but if I may refer to it tonight, I would say to the Minister that it is no good his saying to the motorist or pedestrian, or anyone else, "You should do this." The thing to do is to say, "You must do it." We ought to put a sanction into it. That is the only way to make people face up to their responsibilities as citizens. I think that the Highway Code from that point of view will fail as the last one did.
I am told by some of the commercial people that the conduct on the roads today of the majority of motorists is as bad as can be; it is very unsatisfactory, to say the least. I believe that one of the reasons for this, which I should like the Minister to note in particular, is that a large percentage of motorists today have never had to undergo a driving test. They ought not to be allowed on the roads until they have become proficient and experienced. We allow motorists, no matter what their age may be, to continue to drive any motor. We accept their word that they can see for a distance of 25 yards—and they have to sign a form to that effect—but they do not undergo any test. I can safely say that I know several people who, because of infirmity and defective eyesight, have no right to drive a car. We all know people of that kind. Until we can attend to that matter, we shall never get improved conduct on the roads.
I want to see better roads, but I also want to see safeguards for not only road users but for the pedestrian who is at the wrong end of the argument when a motorist runs him down.

9.58 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: The hon. and learned Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) expressed surprise that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) expressed the un-Liberal principle that we should impose higher taxation in order to get rid of road congestion. I do not express any surprise that two members of the Socialist Party who have taken part in the debate this evening both put forward the suggestion that one way of curing congestion on the roads would be to prohibit people having motor cars.
The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson), it is true, put that forward as an alternative, but another of his hon. Friends seemed to think that would be a splendid way of eradicating road congestion. It certainly would be. If there were no motor cars, there would be no traffic on the roads.

Mr. J. Hudson: I did not say that we should have no cars at all. I said that if a person had a car, he should not come into London with it.

Mr. Wilson: There is congestion in other places as well as London. The


basic transport problem is that which was mentioned in our debate last Monday. It is that the man who wants to take his goods from one place to another does it by the cheapest or most convenient method open to him. If he finds that the road is the most suitable method, he will use the road.

It being Ten o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. R. Allan.]

Mr. Wilson: If the motorist finds it most convenient to him, by road he will go. It is no use hon. Members opposite saying that he should be prohibited by this way or that. He will find some way of doing what he wants, and he can only be stopped by force. The only way to make him travel by train, if that is what is desired, is to provide attractive train services or such rates as will attract him to return to the train service. Alternatively, if he is expected to go by road, we must either develop the roads so that they can take what will be the estimated amount of traffic, or we must develop such alternative routes as are possible.
One is well aware of the tremendous cost of road construction in this country. It is not really fair to compare this country with many others, because this is a heavily built-up area and the cost of our agricultural land is much higher than in many other countries. I do not know offhand the comparable figures of road construction for other countries, but the cost certainly is much higher here than in some of the countries which have provided speedways, autobahnen and facilities of that sort.
We should find ourselves in difficulty, therefore, if we tried to imitate some of those methods. To get rid of congestion we should, no doubt, do more than we are at present doing. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Minister has this matter very much in mind and that the Ministry will spend as much as it is able to spend on road improvement.
A number of suggestions have been made, particularly for getting rid of bottlenecks, and so on, but there is one small point which I wish to mention. In considering demands for particular improvements, it is sometimes overlooked

that an improvement may provide relief elsewhere than on the route for which it is asked. I have in mind the Tamar Bridge, for which we in Cornwall and Devon have been asking for a long time. I have never contended that the claims of the Tamar Bridge could be quite as high as some of the other urgent claims which have been put forward for road improvements, bridges and tunnels, but one point about the Tamar Bridge is sometimes overlooked.
Not merely would the Tamar Bridge connect south Cornwall with Devonport, but it would provide an alternative route to the A30, which is already getting very congested. A large part of the traffic by road into Cornwall from Devon and up-country goes down the A30, and if there was an alternative route further south across the Tamar Bridge it might afford considerable relief. I hope that this point will be borne in mind when the problem comes to be considered.

10.3 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I will be short, because I want to leave my hon. Friend the Minister time to reply to the many speeches that have been made. I think that a very large expenditure will have to be incurred upon roads in the near future, and since our resources are limited, it is important that we should direct it into the most useful channels.
Before long, we must also spend a very large sum of money upon the railways. They are equally in need of a development programme which will make them more efficient, because both roads and railways are the arteries of commerce and of normal social life. We must look at our communications as one single problem. Although our railways were the best railway system in the world, they are perhaps not so now, but they must be made the best again by very large capital expenditure. Bearing that in mind, we must look at the requirements of the road system and what we can manage in relation to it.
It may be that we cannot entirely meet the expenditure out of current revenue. I do not know. But I am not myself inclined to believe that we can cut our way through this Gordian knot by a road loan.
There are so many demands on our financial resources in the immediate future for development of the Colonial Empire and for various other commitments that I do not think the financial device of a loan rather than current expenditure is going to open wide to us the gates of unrestricted road development. That being so, I suggest that we should concentrate on our main difficulty. My experience of roads in this country and other countries is that we have here a better system of secondary roads than anywhere else. We have very good secondary roads indeed. Of course they can be improved. There are many particular spots on particular roads and most hon. Members appear to have such a road in their constituencies.
Where we are greatly defective, greatly inferior to many foreign countries and are growing more inferior, is in our trunk road system. Our trunk roads should be like our main railway lines. I would not venture to offer the House an opinion on whether we should alter and amend existing roads or drive through new main roads. I am inclined to the view of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) that we shall have to drive through new arterial roads, but when that is done it has got to be done really ruthlessly. We must not allow any egress to or ingress from local residential areas. One will have to cut off side roads quite ruthlessly. The new roads will have to be like, railway lines, with no pedestrians on them, no bicycles and no stopping except for lay-bys. They will have to be proper roads where people can do considerable speeds, and let us not be afraid of speed as though it were some sort of wickedness. We want to live faster in this country.

Mr. Keenan: You can go faster.

Mr. Bell: The hon. Member opposite has a phobia about motor-cars, but he is at least logical and consistent. But the fact is that mechanical transport has come and our job is to find out what people want and give it to them, and not run out to see what little Johnny is doing and tell him not to. We want to give people the roads that people want. Germany and other foreign countries have them. One can leave a town there and drive along a dual carriageway and drive

comfortably and safely at 60 miles an hour until one reaches one's destination and then one goes into the town into which one wanted to go.
That may cost a lot in additional expenditure, but it pays for itself very quickly indeed. My only fear is that, having built these roads, we may allow buses back on them and put up bus stops and allow residential neighbourhoods alongside them until we get people writing to M.P.s asking for pedestrian crossings and 30 mile-an-hour speed limits and all the rest of it. Western Avenue is a monument to just that kind of thing.
So much for the main roads. I do not think there is any more to be said about it. We want half a dozen of these roads so that people wanting to go quickly, lorries, freight vehicles or motor cars, can go on these main arteries straight through and come out on to a secondary road. We do not want a great many, only a few.
The other matter is quite separate, and that is congestion in big cities like London. I do not think that much can be done about it, and if anything significant were done it would cost hundreds of millions of pounds. My advice to the Minister is not to spend the money. Central London is jammed up, but that is a very good deterrent to people from bringing their cars into London. It is probably an easier way to deal with the matter than to suggest a system of permits or special taxes.

Mr. Keenan: But it does not stop them.

Mr. Bell: Those who have to bring their cars into London do meet with difficulties. I appreciate that there are difficulties, but on the whole a parking space for a car can be found outside the congested area and people who do not need to bring their cars into London will not do so. I am not welcoming that as something which I like, but if we are restricted in what we can spend in the near future, then we must not spend large sums on what will be a slight palliative in Central London. Let us spend the money on great arteries of commerce and industry which we terribly lack. As a trading nation, to be without these is a great handicap. We have only to think of the time and money wasted every day on our main trunk


roads. We simply must have those main arteries.
If I may, I should like to make a trifling suggestion about the exits from London. It is that there are far too many traffic lights on them. I am not a great believer in traffic lights at important junctions. I think it very much better to have the major road and minor road system. A terrible congestion and slowing down of traffic has resulted from the proliferation of traffic lights in the last 10 or 20 years.
There is one final point I should like to make on this, and it is that we must have from big cities like London one or two or three main exit roads which go under and over other roads. In this matter too we have got to be ruthless and stop people going on them. We should tell the motorist that once he gets on to such a road he can go straight ahead until he is outside the built-up area. There is such a road from somewhere in Paris to Le Bourget, and they also run from some other continental cities. There are clear approach roads and a motorist cannot get on to them except by a flyover connection. There is no question of people walking across them. They are absolutely express roads in and out of cities.
There is no other solution, and we must face it. There must be a clear run, and as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said, it is quite fantastic to have such a straight road running for some distance and then crossing over a main road. That is a waste of time and money.
The two remedies which I have suggested are the priorities on which we should spend our limited resources in the time immediately ahead. We shall come to the other smaller matters later. I think we should develop our railways so that we can have fast, fully-braked freight trains. That would take a good deal of freight off the roads. The increase in traffic on the roads is largely because of vehicles carrying freight. It is not the private cars which are creating the new congestion. If there could be the capital expenditure on the railways so that it would be possible to have these fast fully-braked freight trains that would be a contribution to our road congestion problem, and that together with the other matters I have suggested, would make a real contribution towards

solving it. We would see real progress and later we could look round at the smaller problems.

10.14 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Hugh Molson): I am sure all of us would like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. M. Lindsay) on his initiative in raising this matter on the Adjournment tonight, and on the very fortunate chance that the other business ended earlier than had been expected, because our debate has shown how many hon. Members are deeply concerned about the various problems connected with our roads, our traffic and road safety.
I am sure I shall have the sympathy of the House in trying to reply to the debate, as so many various subjects have been raised, some of which are issues of principle and others, in fact, merely constituency questions. In the time remaining to me I shall try to deal on broad lines with some of the major matters that have arisen, and if in the last few moments I can do so, I shall try to answer other points raised by hon Members tonight.
I was glad that several hon. Members emphasised the difference between the problem of our general roads system linking one town with another and the problem of congestion inside those towns. The Government accept the general principle that it is necessary for there to be a large programme of road development as and when it is possible for us to finance it. We recognise fully that on many of our great trunk roads, which are essential to the industry of this country, there are bottlenecks which must be abolished as soon as possible. I could give examples, but some have been mentioned tonight and all of us who travel on the roads are aware of them.
The problem of congestion in the towns is different, as was emphasised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. R. Bell). I agree with those who have said that much will have to be done to drive great thoroughfares through congested towns, and as to the need


for linking up the Lancashire highway with the Mersey Tunnel. I am sure that much can and should be done in that way.
Yet we have to recognise that our great cities are in a form which cannot be altered radically. At present we have rather more than an additional quarter of a million new vehicles being registered each year. Taking London as an example of what is happening to a lesser degree in our other great cities, there is a large influx in the morning and a corresponding departure in the evening. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South that there is a limit to what can be done in the way of providing parking spaces for incoming cars. I am not saying that more should not be done than has been done, but one has to recognise the danger that the more parking space that is provided, the more cars will come.
All those who were in London during the recent bus strike must have been impressed by the fact that, when the buses were off the roads, the congestion was worse and not better. That was a remarkable indication of how many there are who possess motor cars and yet, for their ordinary journeys to London on business or pleasure, find it more convenient to travel by public transport. Therefore, while not in any way suggesting that we should not try to improve parking, particularly in London, I think that we should be wise to consider carefully whether trying to deal with that problem to an excessive extent would present us always with an additional problem.
I have no doubt that for some time ahead, and it may be always, we shall need to have increasing restrictions upon parking. The Road Research Laboratory made a survey a short time ago and arrived at the astonishing conclusion, which has been mentioned to the House before, that in the middle of the day, in the great part of the West End of London, more than 75 per cent. of the kerb space is occupied by parked cars. That is the kind of problem with which it is impossible for any amount of road development and improvements to cope.
Hon. Members have also referred to road safety. There again we have to strike a balance between two extreme

views. We in the Ministry of Transport are anxious to press on with a great programme to eliminate the black spots where we know that there are frequent accidents. We believe that we are working on the right lines and that in time many of the most dangerous places on the roads will have been put right. At the same time I do not think it is true to suggest, as many enthusiasts for roads do, that the mere improvement of the roads and the building of motorways, double carriageways and so on, will of themselves reduce accidents.
The only serious accident that I have been in was on a good wide road when a car turned off some distance ahead without giving any warning. As a result, the next car skidded, and finally five cars were in collision. There is a similar example from Belgium where, as a result of carrying out great road improvements, the accident record on the stretch of road concerned increased by 300 per cent. There is a strong and unanswerable case for improving the road system of this country in the interests of commerce and industry and cheapening transport, but it is very easy to overstate the case on the ground of road safety.
I have been asked a number of questions and I should like to try to answer them. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull about the importance of trying to stagger working hours in order to reduce the burden of the morning and evening peaks. I would, however, respectfully differ from him when he suggests that it should be done compulsorily. What we must do, and we are going to try to do it, is to bring about a staggering of hours on a voluntary basis. That can not only greatly reduce the capital investment needed with regard to London transport but can greatly improve the travelling conditions of the workers.
Abnormal, indivisible loads have been causing great concern to the Ministry for some time. I am afraid that it is impossible to put those loads back on the railways. The fact is that these large loads are due in considerable measure to the great strides which British engineering has taken in the last few years. There are great electrical machines which are manufactured in inland towns and have to be transported to the coast. They cannot be put on the railways because they are too large to pass under


the railway bridges. So it is that, with great difficulty, routes along the roads have to be chosen where there are no bridges too low for the loads to pass under them.

Mr. F. Blackburn: But could they not travel on the roads at night?

Mr. Molson: They cannot always do so. We have to try to choose routes by which they can safely reach the coast.
I was very glad to hear from the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) that he was satisfied with the form of words which we have put into the Highway Code in regard to alcohol. I am so accustomed to his censures that to receive a word of appreciation and praise from him is very pleasant and agreeable. I entirely agree with what he and another hon. Member said about the importance of testing vehicles. A large proportion of motor cars on the roads—especially the older ones—are unsafe, sometimes because of defective brakes and, still more often, because headlights are imperfectly focused, causing most serious dazzle to oncoming traffic.
The fly-over at Hammersmith Broadway is under discussion at present between my Department and London County Council. We now intend to build a fly-over of a modern type on one of the by-passes which we are completing under the programme announced by my right hon. Friend last December. Our minds are open in regard to tolls, but I

am bound to say that the conditions which exist in this small island, where distances are so much less than in the United States of America, where the land is so much more developed and where people cling so much more to their farms and properties, make it very much more difficult than in the United States.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) said that motor roads, with no access from either side, must be driven through remorselessly. I should point out that that would bisect a great many farms and cause great dislocation to farmers. There would be strong opposition from the farming community.
In the short time available, I have tried to give as full an answer as I can. We are fully aware of the need for further improvement of our roads in the general interest of transport and in order to assist industry. We hope to give special priority to the removal of black spots, and there is no matter more prominently in the mind of my right hon. Friend than the need to do what can be done to deal with the problem of traffic congestion in the cities.

Mr. M. Lindsay: May I remind my hon. Friend that we should not have had any railways in this country if they had not been driven ruthlessly through farmland?

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes past Ten o'Clock.